With only three (passing) references to the use of social media, my last book clearly failed to recognise the important role these were already playing in young people’s lives in the period it covered.[1] Since then, their devotion to digital platforms has attracted increasing wider attention, including growing concerns about their potentially harmful effects.

Social Media – Starting young

One reason for these concerns is that children now start to use social media at a very young age. In a Guardian article published in January 2026[2] Emine Saner recorded that, caused by ‘their early exposure to screens’:

At a school in Coventry, there are many four-year-olds among those starting in reception class who can’t sit still, hold a pencil or speak more than a four-word sentence.

She also quoted a longtime reception teacher at a Hampshire school where children became ‘… frustrated if activities aren’t instant and seamless – something she thinks comes from playing games on a phone or tablet’. Drawing also on the experience of reception-class teachers, by January 2026 a survey carried out by the charity Kindred Squared was identifying ‘… a four-year-old … already so online that they try to swipe a book rather than read it…’[3]

Impacts – the young person’s perspective

Over the period, evidence also built on how young people themselves see and judge the impacts on them of their use of social media. For example:

– By the end of 2023, of the 7,000 UK 16-18 year olds who responded to a Millennium Cohort study 57 per cent of the girls and 37 per cent of the boys were agreeing or agreeing strongly that they were addicted to social media.[4]

– Quoting the findings of a YouGov survey of UK 16-25 year olds, the Prince’s Trust NatWest Index reported in January 2024 that ‘worries about being picked on due to faith, sexual identity or cultural background were contributing to (their) feelings of loneliness’.[5]

– Also in 2024, research involving 2,000 18-24 year olds carried out by the ‘global healthcare leader’ STADA concluded that in London 43 per cent of respondents directly attributed their feelings of loneliness to ‘the excessive time they spent online’.[6]

– In March 2025 half of 16-24 year olds who took part in a study carried out by the think tank the New Britain Project said they thought they had spent too much time on social media when they were younger and two-thirds that these were doing more harm than good. Three-quarters were also in favour of tougher legislation.[7]

– Two months later the findings of a British Standards Institution survey revealed that almost half of the nearly 1300 young people who participated would have preferred to live in a world without the internet; and that half would support a ‘digital curfew’ restricting their access to certain apps and sites after 10 pm. With 27 per cent admitting that they had shared their location online with strangers, 68 per cent also felt that these sites were detrimental to their mental health.[8]

– Half of the 16-24 year olds who took part in a study carried out by the think tank New Britain Project agreed that these had taken up too much of their time when they were younger; two-thirds now regarded them as doing more harm than good; and here too three-quarters were supportive of tougher legislation.[9]

In a Guardian article published in May 2025, an 18-year old young woman located this statistical evidence in a telling personalised context. Described as ‘one of many so-called digital natives … growing sceptical of the largely unfettered access to technology that they grew up with’, she recalled how social media had ‘fuelled bullying at (her) school, including … using anonymous confession apps to share cruel comments’. She also wondered ‘what else she might have done with the time wasted’.[10]

Impacts – the wider evidence and debates

In May 2024 Sophie McBain suggested in an article in the New Statesman that many commentators were ‘… reluctant to blame the epidemic of teenage unhappiness and disconnection on social media and smart phones’. According to one of her sources, this was in part because it could distract from ‘… the economics of loneliness’ – illustrated for example by ‘.. the isolating effects of … the mass closure of youth and other community groups’. McBain also concluded, however, that many studies showed considerable variance’ in relation to social media’s capacity for reducing loneliness’, especially because, far from being designed ‘to help us build and maintain good relationships… they were built to capture and monetise our attention…’[11]

By early 2026 a ‘pioneering investigation’ was being launched in the UK involving 4,000 children across 30 secondary schools in Bradford and West Yorkshire. This started from the proposition that at that point there had been ‘no large-scale experimental study exploring the effect of limiting time spent on social media in healthy children…’[12] However by then there was already a significant wider body of evidence of the threat social media was posing or might pose for young people.

For example:

– A study released in July 2024 found that ‘social scrolling’ was compounding worries about body image, with two-thirds of the young men who responded expressing concerns about being too short to be attractive. As they were ‘constantly comparing themselves to the influencers they see online’, 45 per cent of the young women also felt that their self-esteem was being undermined and 12 per cent that they were ‘resort(ing) to potentially unhealthy eating habits to emulate social media stars’.[13]

– By then research involving 2,000 18-24 year olds carried out by the ‘global healthcare leader’ STADA had also concluded that 43 per cent of the London-based respondents were directly attributing their feelings of loneliness to ‘the excessive time they spent online’.[14]

– A Youth Endowment Fund (YEF) study published the following November identified ‘hundreds of thousands’ of teenagers who by then were afraid to go out because of the violence they were seeing on social media. This concern was supported by a Youth Select Committee report published in March 2025 which recorded that ‘on social platforms… a significant number are viewing violent content’.[15]

– It was sharply echoed, too, by a National Crime Agency (NCA) report published the same month which highlighted how, by sharing sadistic and misogynistic material, online gangs were fuelling crimes such as fraud, violence and child sexual abuse, blackmailing girls and encouraging suicide.[16]

Young people’s responses

Evidence from a variety of contrasting sources also began to appear – again sometimes contradictory – on how young people were actually negotiating their social media involvements.

In May 2025, for example, the Guardian published an article in which the Chief Executive of one of the biggest pub and restaurant chains in the UK talked of the role of social media in helping to shift young people away from going out in the evening. His view was supported by evidence that fewer than half of the 1,700 nightclubs open in 2013 were still operating in June 2024.[17]

Other findings, however, were pointing to how by then some young people were finding ways to control and indeed limit the impacts on them of social media:

– By mid-2025 an Ofcom research project had concluded that there had been a rise – from 40 per cent in 2023 to 47 per cent in 2024 – in the number of 16-24 year olds who were deactivating social media notifications and using the ‘do not disturb’ mode.[18]

– According to the findings of a survey of 20,000 12-15 year olds and their parents across 18 countries published in July 2025, over the previous three years the number who were taking breaks from their smartphones in order to better manage their mental health had increased by 18 per cent, to 40 per cent.[19]

– As younger adults turned to reading ‘as an escape from their screens…’, Waterstones Books reported that that year its sales had actually increased.[20]

After directly experiencing the damaging effects of sharing personal information on line, in 2020 one 21 year old young woman, her sister and their friends went so far as to launch a hashtag they labelled ‘#StopFisha’. Drawing on the French slang word for publicly shaming someone, this was a response to what they saw as ‘the impunity of social media platforms’ which, across France and beyond, were offering accounts specifically designed to do this. By later 2024 this strategy was judged to be playing out ‘on an even larger scale’ than when it was launched. [21]

Findings from YEF research also suggested that some young people were trying to use social media in more personally positive ways. At a time of long waiting lists for services, 40 per cent of the 11,000 13-17 year olds it surveyed in England and Wales who had been affected by youth violence were using AI chatbots for mental health support. However, with black children twice as likely as white children to be doing this, ‘youth leaders’ cautioned that, for this kind of support, ‘children at risk “need a human not a bot”’.[22]

By early 2025, findings had also appeared which – albeit in contradictory ways – had begun to unpack how, more widely, young people thought these kinds of threats should be dealt with:

– Sixty-seven per cent of the 16- 29 year olds who responded to one poll in 2025 thought that social media should be banned for under-16s[23].

– This however contrasted with the findings of the Youth Select Committee report which – starting from the assumption that ‘banning us from social media (isn’t) practical’ – recommended in March that year that the companies providing them should be incentivised to develop safer on-line spaces, including by creating an on-line safety rating system.[24] ..

Companies’ responses

The following month, amid growing pressure in both the UK and the USA to tackle a ‘silent crisis’ seen as affecting a whole generation[25], Meta – owner and operator of a wide range of on-line platforms accessed by 54 million under-18s – did indeed announce that it would be requiring under-16s to have parental permission before using its Instagram’s Live features.[26] However, in September when a Meta whistleblower went public, they labelled 64 per cent of its safety tools as ‘ineffective’. They also claimed that, though it ‘consistently makes promises to protect children from the potential harms of its accounts and give them control over their use, these tools were mostly ‘ineffective, unmaintained, quietly changed, or removed’. Instead, the whistleblower insisted

Meta’s conscious produce design and implementation choices are selecting, promoting, and bringing inappropriate content, contact and compulsive use to children every day.[27]

In response to the 2025 Online Safety Act (see below), X (formerly Twitter) said that if it was unable to determine that a user was under 18 or over they would be ‘defaulted into sensitive content settings’ which would stop them from accessing adult material. It would also be introducing ID checks for under-18 year olds. Given its ‘multilayered approach to age checking, Meta also claimed it was already providing only ‘age-appropriate’ experience for young users.[28]

Policy responses

The Online Safety Act – given royal ascent in October 2023 – was an early high profile government response to the social media threats as they were then understood. It required companies to reduce the risks of the use of their online services for illegal activity and to remove any illegal content which did appear. Specifically to protect children, the Act also laid down that:

– By July 2025, effective age assurance processes had to be created for any services which allowed pornography;

– Illegal content such as child sexual abuse, fraud and terrorism material had to be blocked on sites and apps covered by the Act; and

– Under-18s had to be shielded from content related to suicide and self-harm. [29]

Though watered down by ministers as it was debated in the Commons and eventually withdrawn in the September, in March 2025 a private member’s Safer Phones Bill was also tabled which progressed to a second reading.[30] Aimed at ‘… act(ing) on the negative effects of excessive screen time and social media use on children’s health, sleep and learning’, it sought particularly to commit the Government within a year to consider raising the digital age of consent from 13 to 16. Though two months earlier young people aged 13-17 had told the MP promoting the Bill that they supported measures to protect them from ‘digital harm’, they also said they didn’t want the new law to prevent them accessing smartphones which, as their route to the social media, they saw as an ‘integral part’ of their lives.[31] As noted above, this view also had implicit support from the Youth Select Committee which focused instead on the need for the providing companies to develop safer on-line spaces. [32]

By then, some academics were anyway questioning whether bans were a viable way forward. A professor at the University of Cambridge appointed by the Government to review the effects of smartphones on young people called them ‘unrealistic and potentially detrimental’[33], while a Birmingham University study concluded that banning students’ use of their phones in schools did not in itself improve their academic grades, their ‘wellbeing’ more generally or the time they spent on their devices.[34]

Despite evidence emerging by June 2026[35] that three months after it was imposed four in five under-16s were finding ways to evade Australia’s legal ban on their use of social media, this was referenced by the UK Government as a prompt for new legislation. In January 2026 it announced a consultation – which according to technology secretary Liz Kendall would take only few months[36] – on whether a legal ban should be introduced in the UK as part of a wider set of measures to improve young people’s on-line safety.[37] After getting responses from nearly 30,000 parents and children, the Government subsequently also initiated a trial ban on 300 teenagers which imposed ‘digital curfews’ and time limits on their use of apps.[38]

In the same week, by a large majority which included some Labour peers, the House of Lords voted in favour of an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill then going through Parliament banning the use of social media by under-16s – a move which initially the Government said it would block in the Commons.[39] However, on the back of an email campaign by the grassroots organisation Smartphone Free Childhood, over 100,000 people were by then reported to have contacted their MP in support of an Australia-style ban. Though Prime Minister Keir Starmer had previously opposed this – and though he was said still to want more evidence on how the Australian ban was actually working – he now hinted that, in order ‘… to better protect children from social media’, such a ban was being considered. This, he said, needed to include ‘children (who) are turning up age four at reception having spent far too much time on screens’ – and followed a letter from 61 Labour MPs urging him to bring in a ban. [40]

While this political manoeuvring was going on, further enquiries and research had begun into the impacts of social media on children and young people. A trial co-led by the Bradford Institute for Health Research and a psychologist at Cambridge University involving 4,000 students aged 12 to 15 was examining changes in their anxiety and sleep quality, the time they spent with friends and family, and school absences and bullying. Alongside this, the Commons Committee on Science, Innovation and Technology launched a separate investigation into the impact of digital devices and social media on children’s brain development.[41]

Assuring the House of Lords that ‘we recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, both in this house and beyond’, by April 2026 education minister Jacqui Smith was confirming that the Government was about to make a move it had previously resisted. In accepting the amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, it was agreeing, it said, to ‘a pragmatic measure’ of passing ‘critical safeguarding legislation’ banning the use of mobile phones in English schools. [42] The amendment to the Schools Bill also included proposals for a compulsory register for children not in school, for dealing with profiteering in children’s social care and for a ‘single unique identifier’ to help agencies track a child’s welfare. (By then a survey instigated by the Children’s Commissioner for England had shown that by April 2025 90 per cent of secondary schools and almost all primary schools had introduced some form of ban in school hours.[43])

The following month, in response to the Government’s consultation exercise, the Commons Education Committee called for a ban on social media for under-16s and for curbs on ‘platform features’ such as ‘infinite scrolling’. Arguing that social media companies had not demonstrated enough accountability on their platforms for the harm they could be doing to young people, the MPs suggested that they were prioritising engagement over child safety and so called for a wide-ranging risk-based and age-appropriate regulatory framework. The Committee’s Chair commented:

Based on the evidence (we) have received, I simply do not believe that companies who profit from interactions with children can be relied upon to self-regulate’.[44]

With the government’s public consultation – closed the previous day – having attracted ‘an avalanche of responses’, Starmer pledged to act ‘very, very quickly’ to introduce constraints on social media use, including age limits and changes to what were alleged to be ‘addictive design features’. Though denied by Starmer’s spokesperson, former Health Secretary Wes Streeting also talked of legislators having been ‘asleep at the wheel’ in tackling social media threats. [45]

In May 2026 the Association of Directors of Children’s Services made clear its opposition to such moves, claiming that there wasn’t a sufficient evidence base to justify a ban. It called instead for ‘more protective measures and greater accountability for (the) industry’ and ‘improved digital and media literacy for children, young people and their parents and carers’.[46] However, with polls still showing growing support for restrictions on children’s social media use[47], Starmer now apparently accepted that, with its consultation closed, the Government needed to act. By June it was thus reported to be planning to limit under-16s’s access to ‘high-risk’ social media apps, to subject platforms to new restrictions, and to ban under-18s from using ‘romantic or sexual AI chatbots’. [48] This position had also attracted explicit European Union support when, on the back of an ‘expert group’s’ call for restrictions for under-13 year olds, its Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pledged also to introduce ‘age-appropriate restrictions to platforms’.[49] At this point, too, Ofcom announced it was to investigate whether TikTok was failing to protect children from harmful content. [50]

Despite Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy’s acknowledgement that restrictions could not be ‘the sliver bullet solution’, by July 2026 Liz Kendall was thus further committing the Government to standing up to the tech companies.[51] Two day later Starmer also confirmed that the Government was to introduce what he described as sweeping ‘Australia-plus’ restrictions on apps such as Tik-Tok, Instagram and X.[52] Recognising that ‘How we keep kids safe online is one of the biggest debates of our time’, he added:

As a dad, I know every parent wants their child to grow up safe and happy… (T)his government will always stand up for parents and put children first.

Without making it mandatory, children were to be encouraged not to use certain apps – a move underpinned by the introduction of a midnight-to-6 am by-default block.[53] The Government was also reported to be preparing early in the next year to launch a social media ban for under-16 year olds which would include greater scrutiny of how the tech companies verified users’ ages.[54] Two weeks later, France became the first EU country to legally bar children’s use of apps such as TikTok when its Parliament approved a bill banning social media access for under-15s.[55]

Responses to this key policy initiative emerged very quickly. With some reservations and cautions, support came from the Children’s Commissioner for England as well as from several children and youth service organisations.[56] The youth social enterprise Unloc, for example, particularly urged the Government take a ‘collaborative approach’ to the proposed reforms and in particular to ensure that young people – described as ‘vital stakeholders’ – had ‘a seat at the table’.[57] A more critical reaction came from what were described as ‘charities and high-profile figures in disability advocacy’ who voiced concerns that a blanket ban on social media would have negative effects on teenagers who didn’t find it easy to meet people in person or to engage with peers like themselves.[58] A ‘law expert’ also pointed out that the state involvement in family life and parenting assumed by the new proposals could have major practical and legal implications – for example by imposing on parents an explicit legal duty to prevent their children using social media during curfew periods.[59]

So – what now, what next?

As the evidence has built up on the risks for the young that social media are posing, so too over this period has the pressure on sometimes reluctant policy-makers to provide greater protection from them. As, from the Prime Minister down, this reluctance has been largely overcome, top-down action is being taken or planned, including the introduction of legal bans on children and young people’s use of some core social media features.

However, as I conclude this post in late July 2026, this remains an evolving situation. In particular, given how central social media now are to young people’s lives, questions remain on whether they will support the new and planned restrictions and how policy-makers will respond if – when? – ways are found of evading them?

Postscript

Two days after the final draft of this post was completed, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) – now closed down by new Prime Minister Andy Burnham – published a 62-page paper entitled ‘Children’s Wellbeing Online: Final Report’.[60] This started from the premises that social media play an ‘increasingly central role in children and young people’s everyday lives’ and that these help them feel ‘connected, included and informed’. However, it immediately acknowledged that social media were also associated:

… with concerns around inappropriate content, contact with strangers, sharing of personal information, and features designed to encourage prolonged use. The arrival of AI chatbots in widespread public use adds a further dimension to the debate.

It then posed the question: ‘… which forms of intervention are likely to be most effective, proportionate and acceptable to those affected’.

The paper draws on research which – set ‘within a wider programme of work designed to inform policy development on children online safety and wellbeing…’ – had been designed and delivered by a consortium led by the market research consultancy Savanta. The research’s aim was ‘…to build a robust evidence base on children’s social media use and attitudes towards potential restrictions, including the possibility of an under-16 blanket social media ban’. Using a wide range of surveys and other forms of data collection, and with a ‘central role’ for eight Youth Collaborators, it gathered perspectives – though ‘not always aligned’ – from children and young people (including from seven ‘youth Hack’ events held across the UK), from parents and from teachers and youth practitioners.

Amongst the paper’s key findings and conclusions were that:

– ‘Parents and teachers and youth practitioners show support for an under-16 social media ban, while children and young people are more divided’.

– Within this overall position, the picture amongst parents, teachers and youth practitioners is ‘more nuanced’ – in relation, for example, to setting a minimum age for access to some functions, to curfews and to a blanket ban. This, the report concludes, provides corroboration that for teachers and youth practitioners ‘the preference (is) for targeted approaches when a direct choice is required’.

– Though the evidence from the research’s different sources is here too described as nuanced, the most consistent finding from children and young people was that they ‘do not support an outright ban on social media for under-16’s’. Their preference is more for ‘selective access … with around half (of those responding) saying (that) under-16s should be allowed to use some platforms but not others’.

– When invited at the seven youth Hack events to discuss social media with reference to specific platforms, young people chose ones ‘… reflecting the different social media habits of participants across the programme. Those discussed were TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram and YouTube.

Bernard Davies

August 2026

 

References

[1] Bernard Davies, 2024, Youth Work Policies in England 2019-2023: Can Open Youth Work Survive?, palgrave macmillan,

[2] Emine Saner, 2026, ‘”We’re losing a big part of being human”’, Guardian, 22 January

[3] Gaby Hinsliff, 2026, ‘Teenagers want limits on social media. They deserve more’, Guardian, 29 January

[4] Hannah Devlin, 2024, ‘Revealed: almost half of British teens feel addicted to social media, study says’, Guardian, 2 January

[5] Amrit Virdi, 2024, ‘NEET young people worst affected by work and money worries’, CYPN, 30 January

[6] Rebecca Thornhill, 2024, ‘New research reveals crushing impact of “anti-social” media on young people in London’, LondonWorld, 2 July, https://www.londonworld.com/community/new-research-reveals-crushing-impact-of-anti-social-media-on-young-adults-in-london-4688215

[7] Gaby Hinsliff, 2025, ‘It’s the age of regret: gen Z grew up glued to their screens, and missed the joy of being human’, Guardian, 7 March

[8] Raphael Boyd, 2025, ‘Almost half of young people would prefer a world without internet, UK study finds’, Guardian, 20 May

[9] Gaby Hinsliff, 2025, ‘It’s the age of regret: gen Z grew up glued to their screens, and missed the joy of being human’, Guardian, 7 March

[10] Rachel Hall, 2025, ‘”My parents didn’t have a clue”: why many digital natives would not give their kids smartphones’, Guardian, 26 May

[11] Sophie McBain, 2024, ‘The lonely land: Why are so many young people feeling so isolated?’, The New Statesman, 3-9 May, p 33. See also Hannah Devlin, 2024, Op Cit

[12] Nicola Davis and Kiran Stacey, 2026, ‘UK study to examine effects of restricting social media for children’, Guardian, 20 January. See also Alexandra Topping and Robert Booth, 2026, ‘Hundreds of UK teeagers to trial six-weel social media curbs for major study, Guardian, 25 March

[13] Rebecca Thornhill, 2024, ‘New research reveals crushing impact of “anti-social£ media on young adults in London’, London World, 2 July, https://www.londonworld.com/community/new-research-reveals-crushing-impact-of-anti-social-media-on-young-adults-in-london-4688215

[14] Rebecca Thornhill, 2024, ‘New research reveals crushing impact of “anti-social” media on young people in London’, LondonWorld, 2 July, https://www.londonworld.com/community/new-research-reveals-crushing-impact-of-anti-social-media-on-young-adults-in-london-4688215

[15] Robert Booth, 2024, ‘Violence on social media making teenagers afraid to go out, study finds’ Guardian, 25 November. See also House of Commons: Youth Select Committee, 2025, Op Cit, https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/youth-select-committee/hc-999—youth-violence-and-social-media-online.pdf; Joanne Parkes, 2025, ‘”Banning us from social media not practical” say teenagers’, CYPN, 27 March

[16] Rachel Hall, 2025, ‘Online gangs of teenage boys sharing extreme material are “emerging threat” in UK’, Guardian, 25 March

[17] Simon Goodey, 2025, ‘Tough times loom for night-time economy as young Britons opt to go out (and go home) early’, Guardian, 27 May

[18] Rachel Hall, 2025, ‘ Children limiting smartphone use to manage mental health, survey finds’, Guardian, 10 July

[19] Rachel Hall, 2025, 10 July, op cit

[20] Sarah Baxter, 2025, ‘Waterstones says book sales are up as young adults snub screens’, Guardian, 16 August

[21] Steve Rose 2025, ‘”Social media is a social experiment”’, Guardian, 9 December

[22] Robert Booth, 2025, ‘”I feel it’s a friend”: a quarter of teenagers turn to AI chatbots for mental health support’, Guardian, 9 December

[23] Libby Brooks, 2025, ‘Work and money worry young people more than culture wars or climate, UK poll finds’, Guardian, 31 March

[24] Joanne Parkes, 2025, ‘”Banning social media is not practical”, say teenagers’, CYPN, 27 March

[25] Steve Rose, 2025, ‘”Social media is a social experiment”’, Guardian, 9 December

[26] Dan Milmo, 2025, ‘Meta blocks livestreaming by teenagers in Instagram’, Guardian, 8 April

[27] Rachel Hall, 2025, ‘Instagram still poses risk to children despite new safety tools, says Meta whistleblower’, Guardian, 25 September

[28] Dan Milmo and Robert Booth, 2025, ‘What are the new UK online safety rules and how will age checks on adult content be enforced?’, Guardian, 24 July

[29] GOV.UK, 2025, ‘Online Safety Act: Explainer’, updated 17 March 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer; Jessica Elgot, 2025, ‘Blanket ban on teen smartphone use “potentially detrimental”, says academic’, Guardian, 3 April. Both accessed 10 April 2025; Dan Milmo, 2025, ‘Meta blocks livestreaming by teenagers in Instagram’, Guardian, 8 April

[30] See https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3778

[31] Joe Lepper, 2025, ‘Smartphones now an “integral part” of our lives, teenagers tell MP behind new bill’, CYPN, 16 January

[32] Joanne Parkes, 2025, ‘”Banning social media is not practical”, say teenagers’, CYPN, 27 March

[33] Jessica Elgot, 2025, ‘Blanket ban on teen smartphone use “potentially detrimental”, says academic’, Guardian, 3 April

[34] Matthew Weaver, 2025, ‘School phone bans alone do not improve grades or wellbeing, says UK study’, Guardian, 5 February

[35] Anna Bawden, 2026, ‘Four in five under-16s in Australia using social media despite ban, study shows’, Guardian, 24 June

[36] Nicola Davis and Kiran Stacey, 2026, op cit, 20 January

[37] Kiran Stacey, 2026, ‘UK ministers launch consultation on whether to n=ban social media for under-16s’, 19 January

[38] Alexandra Topping and Robert Booth, 2026, ‘Hundreds of UK teeagers to trial six-weel social media curbs for major study, Guardian, 25 March

[39] GOV.UK, 2026, ‘Government to drive action to improve children’s relationship with mobile phones and social media’, 19 January, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-drive-action-to-improve-childrens-relationship-with-mobile-phones-and-social-media; Abraham Armstrong, 2026, ‘Children’s social media consultation – as Lords back ban, how would restrictions work?’, CYPN, 14 January

[40] Priya Bharadia, 2026, ‘More than 100,000 people urge MPs to ban social media for under-16s inUK’, Guardian, 15 January; Nicola Davis and Kiran Stacey, 2026, op cit, 20 January

[41]  Alexandra Topping and Robert Booth, 2026, op cit, 25 March

[42] Sally Weale, 2026, ‘Mobile phones to be banned in schools in England under new plans’, Guardian, 20 April. See also Derren Hayes, 2026, ‘Mobile phone ban in schools – key questions and reaction’, CYPN, 21 April

[43] Richard Adams, 2025, ‘More than 90% of school in England ban mobile phone use, survey shows’, Guardian, 10 April

[44] Derren Hayes, 2026, ‘MPs back social media ban for under-16s and call for curbs on “addictive” features’, CYPN,  21 May

[45] Robert Booth and Jessica Elgot, 2026, ‘Social media crackdown is expected in weeks’, Guardian, 27 May

[46] Joanne Parkes, 2026, ‘ADCS opposes under-16s social media ban’, CYPN, 29 May

[47] Joanne Parkes, 2026, op cit, CYPN, 29 May

[48] Dan Milmo, Aisha Down and Alexandra Topping, 2026, ‘Under-16s to be banned from “high-risk” apps under clampdown on social media’, Guardian, 13 June; Robert Booth, 2026, ‘ UK investigation to determine if TikTok fails to protect children from harmful content’, Guardian, 14 July

[49] Jennifer Rankin, 2026, ‘EU chief pledges social media ban to protect children from “predatory algorithms’, Guardian, 13 July

[50] Robert Booth, 2026, ‘UK investigation to determine if TikTok fails to protect children from harmful content’, Guardian, 14 July

[51] Dan Milmo, Aisha Down and Alexandra Topping, 2026, ‘Under-16s to be banned from “high-risk” apps under clampdown on social media’, Guardian, 13 June; Robert Booth, 2026, ‘ UK investigation to determine if TikTok fails to protect children from harmful content’, Guardian, 14 July

[52] Jessica Elgot, Dan Milmo and Aisha Down, 2026, ‘PM to announce “Australia plus” social media ban for under-16s’, Guardian, 15 June. See also Derren Hayes, 2026, ‘Government plans to ban social media for children a “turning point”, say sector leaders’, CYPN, 15 June

[53] Robert Booth, 2026, ‘UK 16- and 17-year olds to be encouraged to follow midnight social media curfew’, Guardian 14 July

[54] Robert Booth, 2026, ‘UK investigation to determine if TikTok fails to protect children from harmful content’, Guardian, 14 July

[55] Guardian, 2026, ‘France: Social media ban for under-15s approved’, 25 July.

[56] Derren Hayes, 2026, op cit, CYPN, 15 June

[57] Derren Hayes, 2026, ‘Youth groups make case for young people to shape social media ban’, CYPN, 16 June. See also Derren Hayes, 2026, op cit, CYPN, 15 June

[58] Jessica Murray, 2026, ‘UK social media ban could cut lifeline for disabled children, campaigners warn’, Guardian, 16 June

[59] Children and Young People Now, 2026, ‘Comment: Legal considerations of children’s social media ban’, 17 June

[60]DSIT, 2026, Children’s Wellbeing Online: Final Report’, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a5757409e631544544136cb/Parents__and_children_s_views_on_social_media_-_quantitative_and_qualitative_report.pdf, Savanta, downloaded 22 July 2026