From Australia to the United Kingdom, governments are imposing sweeping restrictions on children’s access to social media, arguing that the platforms are harming mental health and wellbeing, while critics warn bans may drive teenagers into less regulated corners of the internet.
Somewhere between a viral TikTok challenge and an endless late-night Instagram scroll, governments around the world decided enough was enough.
For years, concerns about the effects of social media on children simmered among parents, educators and researchers. Today, those concerns are rapidly being translated into law. Across multiple continents, countries are moving to bar children under 16 from accessing major social media platforms, marking one of the most sweeping regulatory shifts in the history of the internet.
The latest to join the movement is the United Kingdom.
Announcing the policy, Prime Minister Keir Starmer argued that social media had become a threat to children’s wellbeing and safety, saying the government could no longer ignore its effects.
“Social media is making our children unhappy and unsafe,” Starmer said, framing the proposed restrictions as a measure designed to protect young people and give parents greater support in managing screen time.
The UK’s proposed ban follows what has become a growing international trend.
Australia led the way in December 2025 by becoming the first country to enact a nationwide prohibition preventing under-16s from accessing platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X, Snapchat, Reddit and YouTube. The law requires companies to verify users’ ages and imposes steep financial penalties on platforms that fail to comply.
Indonesia followed in March 2026, becoming the first Asian nation to implement a similar restriction by requiring major platforms to deactivate accounts belonging to underage users. Malaysia has since adopted mandatory electronic age-verification requirements, while Brazil introduced strict identity checks for young users as part of a broader online safety framework.
Momentum continues to build elsewhere. Canada is considering federal legislation targeting social media use by children under 16, New Zealand is developing comparable measures, and several European countries—including Norway, Denmark and Portugal—are pursuing laws that would either raise the minimum age for social media access or require robust digital verification systems.
The rationale is strikingly consistent across jurisdictions: governments increasingly believe that algorithm-driven platforms contribute to cyberbullying, excessive screen time, sleep disruption, harmful content exposure, online exploitation and deteriorating mental health among children.
Australian officials have argued that many platforms are deliberately designed to maximise engagement through features that encourage prolonged use, exposing young users to material that may negatively affect their health and wellbeing.
The United Kingdom has signalled that its own approach could extend beyond conventional social media to include tighter controls on livestreaming services and online interactions between children and strangers.
Yet the crackdown is far from universally embraced.
Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov has emerged as one of the most vocal critics, warning that outright bans may simply push teenagers towards VPNs and less regulated online spaces where the risks could be even greater.
“Banning social media for teenagers only puts them in greater danger,” Durov argued, contending that parental involvement and existing digital safety tools are more effective than blanket prohibitions.
Some researchers have echoed calls for caution, noting that while concerns about excessive social media use are widespread, establishing direct causal links between platform use and long-term neurological harm remains an evolving area of scientific research.
Behavioural experts have also emphasised that many adolescents now use social media as a primary means of maintaining friendships and participating in community life, warning that restrictions should be accompanied by investments in sports, youth programmes and offline social opportunities.
Parents, however, are often more enthusiastic.
Many have welcomed government intervention, arguing that it removes the burden of individually policing children’s online habits and helps establish common expectations across schools and communities.
The practical details remain unresolved in many countries. Policymakers are still determining how existing accounts will be handled, how age verification will work in practice, and whether enforcement should focus on families or technology companies.
What is increasingly clear, however, is that the debate has shifted. The question is no longer whether governments should intervene in children’s digital lives, but how far they should go—and whether technology companies can be compelled to redesign platforms built around capturing attention.
For the generation raised on likes, reels and endless scrolling, the era of unrestricted access may be drawing to a close.
