Exploring the social media ban: perspectives from professionals

Last month (June 2026), the government announced that access to many social media platforms will be blocked for under-16s in the UK from next year.

Some have welcomed the ban as a concrete step towards protecting young people from online harms; others have questioned whether it can be enforced or worry it will push young users towards less regulated corners of the internet. Meanwhile, many young people have voiced fears about feeling disconnected because of any ban, and some have cautioned against treating social media as the whole story. For example, our Deputy CEO Claire Evans has pointed to more than a decade of falling investment in the community spaces, which she argues are vital for nourishing young people's social worlds.

Early research on how social media impacts young people’s wellbeing presents a mixed picture. Some studies have highlighted harms and others have found more positive impacts, such as facilitating social connection and self-expression.

As a mental health charity that develops training, resources and other types of support for professionals working with young people, we know that many of those we support and learn from have different views on the ban. Listening to these diverse perspectives, along with the voices of young people themselves, is vital for the government - now headed by a new prime minister - ahead of the ban being rolled-out.

Andrew Apraku, an education professional, and Ann Memmott, an autism and neurodiversity consultant, share their differing thoughts on the ban, and we outline what we believe should happen next.

Hear from the experts

Andrew is a teacher, education and behaviour consultant, and fatherhood advocate. He is also parent to three children aged 10, 8 and 1, and supports Anna Freud as a Parent and Carer Champion. He said:

"I'm genuinely pleased with this decision. It's not often that governments make decisions they know won't be popular, but sometimes leadership is about doing what's right rather than what's easy. I think this is one of those moments.

"Having worked in education for over 15 years, I've seen first-hand the damage social media can cause. Schools are dealing with cyberbullying, online harassment, children sharing images of one another, and now AI and deepfake technology being used to manipulate photos. These issues don't just affect the young person involved. They place a huge burden on teachers, pastoral teams and parents who are left trying to deal with the consequences.

"As a parent, I support the ban because children are still discovering who they are. Social media constantly tells them who they should be, what they should look like and how they should behave. Before they've had the chance to build confidence in themselves, they're comparing their lives to unrealistic standards. That can't be healthy.

"I also think this gives parents back some responsibility. Parents should be the biggest influence on their children's values and character, not social media algorithms designed to keep them scrolling.

"We also see the impact in schools. Many children stay up late on TikTok, Snapchat or Instagram, then arrive exhausted and unable to focus. Attendance and learning suffer, and families are often left dealing with the consequences.

"Of course, there will be loopholes. Parents could create accounts for their children, but I hope families see this law as an opportunity to protect their children rather than something to work around. Legislation can only do so much. Parents have an important role to play too.

"That said, I don't think social media is the only issue. Gaming also deserves attention. Many children spend hours online late into the night, and the effects on sleep, wellbeing and learning can be just as damaging.

"Overall, I think this is a brave and necessary step. It won't solve every problem, but if it helps children sleep better, spend more time with family and come to school ready to learn, then it's a step in the right direction."

Ann is an autism and neurodiversity consultant, researcher and trainer. She is also an Associate at Autism Central - a peer support service delivered by Anna Freud and funded by NHS England for the families and support networks of autistic people - and has a neurodivergent son. She said:

"Child safety has been at the heart of much of my work over the last decades. During this time, so many parents and grandparents have shared very sensible concerns about the impact of young people seeing inappropriate things on social media.

"For example, a grandparent told me that their grandchild was spending more than eight hours out of every 24 on Snapchat and TikTok, leading to their schoolwork and sleep suffering. One parent found their son had spent a fortune they couldn’t afford on social media gaming sites. Another said their 12-year-old daughter had been targeted by a man pretending to be a girl on a social media stream. It’s no wonder parents want action.

"The government is to ban under 16s from some social media platforms, including YouTube and Instagram, but not WhatsApp or Signal.

"There is no doubt that access to very troubling online materials and risk of contact with predators is a disaster for so many young people.

"But is a total ban the answer? Not all uses of social media are bad and not all social media sites are wholly bad.

"For example, in a world where many young people are not free to go outside to play, they may socialise online, sharing clips about celebrities, their favourite sports and much more. They might talk through their problems with one another or find safe spaces and helpful materials from reputable organisations, like charities. For some disabled or neurodivergent young people, social media may be the place where they find friends. Many social media sites open up access to useful education materials too.

"We also need to consider whether it will work. After the ban in Australia, around 7 in 10 young people had found workarounds within months. What happens if they get in trouble online, then? Will they feel unable to seek help, worried about being held responsible? Social media companies showed little sign of taking the ban seriously.

"New social media sites pop up within weeks, and not all look like the traditional offerings - how will the law keep pace with this?

"I would argue that it’s adults who have failed our young people, in what we built and allowed access to. However, I’m not sure that a 15-year-old needs the same total protection from online life that a seven-year-old might need.

"What we may need is safer, age-banded social media that young people aged, for example, 11-15 can use. We need to really hold social media companies to account for what they enable on their sites. We need to demand sites are properly moderated by responsible, well checked individuals, and have time-limiting controls.

"Headline-grabbing vote-winners like ‘ban all social media under 16’ may look impressive, but I sense that many of our young people may be no safer than before, from the current plans.

"The ban may need more thought. I believe we need to really listen to young people, and work with them to find the right social media solutions. If they co-own the end results, it’s more likely that the restrictions will work for them."

Our final thoughts

The relationship between social media and young people’s wellbeing is complex and, as Andrew and Ann demonstrate, banning social media for under 16s could solve some issues, while not addressing - and even causing - other ones. Here are some key takeaways we want the government to turn into action ahead of implementation:

• Young people must help shape the ban's roll-out: This should be an ongoing partnership rather than a one-off consultation, with young people being given the opportunity to inform decisions. This could be, for example, on how age checks could work, how success is measured over time and what support is in place for those who rely on online spaces for connection as well as those that get around the restrictions.

• A ban doesn't remove platforms' responsibilities: With young people now set to gain access to platforms at 16, pressure must continue on companies to design safer, properly moderated services that do not fuel addiction and social comparison.

• We need to think about what fills the gap: If young people lose some of their online spaces for connection, it is even more important to reinvest in alternatives in the real world, such as youth clubs and community spaces

Find out more:

We are always looking for people to share their opinions, experiences and ideas with us so that we can turn this evidence into action to improve mental health support and services.

Parents, carers and young people with experience of mental ill health can join our Champions programme. Professionals can sign-up to our newsletters to hear more about our work and participation opportunities.