Streeting Advocates for Social Media Ban on Minors as Consultation Concludes

Streeting backs under 16s social media – Wes Streeting, the former health secretary, has endorsed the idea of banning children under 16 from social media platforms in the United Kingdom, criticizing regulators and politicians for their delayed response to the issue. Following his recent departure from Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s cabinet, Streeting took to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme to highlight the need for urgent action, likening the strategies of tech giants to those of the tobacco industry in creating addictive digital environments for young users.

Streeting emphasized that the government should adopt a precautionary approach, asserting that the current measures are insufficient to protect children from the potential harms of social media. “The precautionary principle should apply here,” he stated, pointing out that the UK is “behind the curve” in addressing the issue. His comments align with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s recent commitment to take decisive steps against the impact of social platforms on minors. Starmer told reporters that the government would implement a game-changing initiative, adding that the closure of the consultation on Tuesday would pave the way for swift action.

The government’s ongoing consultation, which has been in progress since March, aims to evaluate various measures to enhance online safety for children. Among the proposed strategies is a potential ban on social media for under-16s, a policy already in place in Australia. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall confirmed that new regulations would be introduced by the end of 2026, stating that the consultation’s findings would be published in the summer. She highlighted the government’s intent to consider a wide range of interventions, including restrictions on features like auto-play and infinite scroll, as well as stricter enforcement of age verification systems.

Kendall noted that the consultation has gathered over 70,000 submissions from charities, campaign groups, and the general public, reflecting a diverse array of opinions on the matter. Participants were asked about the effectiveness of measures such as app curfews and age checks, with some advocating for targeted restrictions rather than an outright ban. For instance, police leaders recently called for focusing on high-risk features—like private messaging—rather than entire platforms, arguing that these elements should be restricted for under-16s. Donya Soni-Clark, associate director of TechUK, echoed this sentiment, stating that “regulating by features, not by platform” would be the most effective approach.

While the consultation is open to all perspectives, some advocates believe a ban is the only way to ensure significant change. Streeting, who now feels “liberated” to express his views freely after resigning from his government role, expressed confidence in Kendall’s ability to act promptly once the consultation closes. However, the debate remains polarized, with campaigners divided on whether a total prohibition or more nuanced regulations would yield better results.

During the consultation, participants were also asked to comment on children’s access to AI chatbots and the necessity of strengthening age checks. These questions aim to assess how different aspects of digital platforms affect young users’ wellbeing. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, in its recent submission, suggested that doctors should routinely inquire about children’s device and social media usage, drawing parallels between screen time and smoking in terms of health risks. Jeanette Dickson, the academy’s chair, noted that the issue has become a “unifying force” for the medical profession, akin to the public health campaigns of the past.

Although the broader scientific community does not universally agree that screen time is inherently harmful, the analogy to smoking has gained traction in recent years. This comparison has led to calls for warnings similar to those on cigarette packages, urging users to be mindful of the risks associated with social media. A recent California lawsuit, where a young woman successfully sued Meta and YouTube for her childhood addiction, has been hailed as a “big tobacco” moment for the tech industry. The case underscores the growing concern over the addictive nature of digital platforms and their long-term impact on mental and physical health.

The consultation’s closure marks a pivotal step in the UK’s efforts to regulate social media for minors. With the government poised to act quickly, the focus will shift to implementing policies that balance protection and access. Kendall’s emphasis on the broad scope of the review ensures that even platforms like Roblox and Discord—unaffected by Australia’s restrictions—will be scrutinized for their potential risks. This comprehensive approach reflects the government’s determination to address the issue from multiple angles, incorporating feedback from both experts and the public.

Public and Expert Responses to the Consultation

The consultation has sparked a wide range of responses, with organizations like the police, children’s groups, and trade bodies sharing their insights. Police leaders, for example, argued that rather than banning entire apps, the government should target specific features that pose the greatest risk to young users. This perspective highlights the complexity of the issue, as different stakeholders propose varying solutions to achieve the same goal of safeguarding children.

Meanwhile, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges provided a detailed analysis of how prolonged exposure to extreme content on social media can impact children’s mental and physical health. Its submission cited instances where online violence led to anxiety, depression, and even physical harm, reinforcing the need for stricter oversight. The academy’s call to action aligns with broader concerns about the role of technology in shaping young minds, as well as the importance of early intervention in mitigating long-term effects.

Public opinion has been equally divided, with some families supporting a ban to limit children’s screen time and others advocating for self-regulation. The consultation process has allowed for a nuanced discussion, enabling parents and children to voice their experiences and preferences. Kendall’s commitment to transparency is evident in her promise to publish the consultation’s findings in the summer, ensuring that the decision-making process remains open and informed.

The debate over social media regulation is not new, but the urgency has intensified in recent years. As the UK government prepares to act, the lessons from Australia’s ban and the California lawsuit will play a critical role in shaping the final policy. Streeting’s comments, combined with Starmer’s pledge for decisive measures, signal a shift toward prioritizing children’s wellbeing in the digital age. The outcome of the consultation will determine whether the UK follows Australia’s lead or adopts a more tailored approach.

With the consultation closing, the next phase involves translating these insights into actionable policies. The government’s willingness to act swiftly, as highlighted by Kendall, suggests that the decision is imminent. However, the success of any measures will depend on how effectively they address the root causes of social media’s impact on children. As the debate continues, the UK’s approach will serve as a benchmark for other nations facing similar challenges in digital regulation.

In conclusion, the consultation has brought together a wealth of perspectives, from frontline experts to everyday users, to evaluate the best path forward. While a ban may be the most visible solution, the government’s openness to diverse strategies indicates a commitment to finding a balanced and sustainable approach. As the final decision looms, the focus remains on protecting children without stifling their access to the benefits of digital technology.