The ban has caused controversy and criticism since it was announced. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The ban has caused controversy and criticism since it was announced. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian Social media ‘It makes no sense’: 16- and 17-year-olds on UK social media ban Government has announced a ban on social media for under-16s, including Instagram, TikTok and YouTube
Prefer the Guardian on Google The UK government has announced a social media ban for under-16s .
They will be blocked from accessing social media, including Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook and X, from next spring.
Livestreaming and stranger communication, including in gaming, will be switched off by default for 16- and 17-year-olds.
We asked 16- and 17-year-olds for their thoughts on the forthcoming ban and restrictions.
I will finish school when I’m 17 and go to university when I’m 17, but wouldn’t be able to livestream? It makes no sense. If I can vote, leave home, get married, pay tax, and join the army, why can’t I use my phone how I would like?
I relied on livestream revision sessions for my recent exams, and I know the younger children in my school were talking about this and worried that this resource may not be available to them with the ban.
People living in rural areas could also lose their connection to the world around them through platforms like TikTok. Using social media to build confidence and discover new hobbies will cease.
I just hope politicians sitting in Westminster realise the plan is flawed – they need to have another look at it. Mia, 16, Scotland
While I recognise some of the issues raised about the use of social media, I am concerned that this has been rushed out more as a political win than as an evidence-based solution.
No one should be scrolling Instagram until three o’clock in the morning – but to suggest a digital curfew is laughable. The government has no answers to any “how?” questions, only the response that this is “Australia plus”... Australia plus what, and how? Robert, 16, south-east England
I don’t agree with entirely blocking social media from under-16s. It shouldn’t be our fault that the internet is an unsafe place; we should be blaming the [tech] companies for not doing better.
I feel it should be kids who are banned, not teens. Under-13s would be a better idea. The curfews for 16- and 17-year-olds is also utterly ridiculous. At this age, we can have sex. Why should we have a bedtime like we’re babies? We are basically recognised as young adults, so this curfew isn’t the right idea. Nate*, 16, South Wales
I don’t believe the ban is a bad thing. I think it has good intent to protect children from predators on the internet and from becoming addicted to social media.
If we can stop other generations from being addicted to the internet and these platforms, I think that’s absolutely a great thing. Social media has such an impact on mental health as well. I think we’ve all seen a decline in young people’s mental health as social media has had an increase in popularity. Overall, the ban has good intent, and I think it will positively affect the young generation to come. Hayley*, 16, Shropshire
I welcome a social media ban, although I am sceptical of its effectiveness. When I was younger, with just a bit of ingenuity, I was able to get around standard parental controls on my devices. Teenagers, given a couple of months, will definitely find a way around the ban.…