A planned ban on social media platforms for under-16s feels completely out of touch with reality and is effectively too difficult to enforce writes Henry Ellams
The proposal, set to take effect in the new year and covering sites such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X, strikes me as not only heavy-handed but also deeply flawed.
It seems absurd that at 16, a young person can leave home, drive a tractor, drink alcohol with supervision, open a bank account, work a full-time job—yet still be barred from accessing a basic YouTube video.
Targeting platforms like TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram is one thing, but banning YouTube crosses a line.
There are valid concerns with certain social media, but I believe this blanket approach is misguided, unrealistic, and ultimately unenforceable.
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen well-intentioned digital regulation fall short.
The Online Safety Act 2023 sought to block UK users from 18+ websites and content to protect minors.
But the restrictions were quickly rendered ineffective by the widespread use of virtual private networks, or VPNs, which make it appear as though users are browsing from another country and allow them to evade those controls entirely.
As soon as the act came into force, VPNs became the most downloaded app type.
All Anti Pornography/Violent Media restrictions were bypassed easily and for free.
If the social media ban relies on similar geo-restriction technology, teenagers will simply use VPNs to bypass it yet again.
So why not ban VPNs?
That’s not a workable solution either.
VPNs are perfectly legal, with countless legitimate uses.
They’re critical in corporate cybersecurity for protecting sensitive data and securing communications.
Banning them outright is practically impossible without causing massive collateral damage.
Age restricting VPNs would also prove to be controversial.
They protect young people from a variety of online threats—including “doxxing,” where trolls expose personal information by tracing an IP address.
For many teens in toxic gaming or online communities, VPNs are a vital line of defence, not a loophole to close.
Then there’s the knock-on effect for digital creators and commerce.
YouTube, for example, is home to a vast library of educational content—including materials produced by the government itself.
Influencers who reach young audiences through these platforms will lose a significant portion of their viewership under this ban, undermining their income and reducing access to valuable information.
This isn’t just about entertainment; it’s about shutting teens out of important conversations and learning opportunities.
The business impact is just as serious.
For more than two decades, brands have used social media to reach younger audiences, promote products, and grow their businesses.
Take platforms like TikTok and Instagram—removing under-16s from these networks doesn’t only protect them; it disrupts business models and cuts off a key market segment.
Small businesses, start-ups, and established brands alike will lose the ability to engage with their core demographic.
This isn’t just a safety policy—it’s a blow to the digital economy.
When the ban comes into force, many teens will revert to using VPNs to access the sites they use daily.
Nothing will change.
What the government is proposing is unenforceable and economically damaging.
It doesn’t protect young people; instead, it drives them toward circumvention, cuts off essential learning and social spaces, and risks the livelihoods of digital creators and businesses alike.
Better regulation should focus on digital literacy, practical internet safety, and empowering young people, not blanket bans that ignore the complexity of the online world and harm the very communities they claim to protect.
Share