Raising the Age - Answers to common questions

Isn’t this just a blunt ban?

We are proposing a minimum age for commercial social media platforms, just as we do for alcohol or driving.
‍
Platforms that can demonstrate their products are safe for children should be able to serve them. Those that cannot should not.
‍
The goal isn’t to ban kids from connection – it’s about preventing unsafe social media platforms from accessing children.

Shouldn’t we focus on education instead of regulation?

It’s not either/or – we need both.
‍
Digital literacy and education are incredibly important for young people and parents. But education alone cannot counteract systems deliberately engineered to exploit vulnerabilities.
‍
We educate young people about alcohol, driving and relationships – but we also have age limits and safety rules.
‍
The same principle applies here. Policy sets the boundaries; education helps young people navigate the world within them.

We need to make platforms safe, not ban kids.

We agree – platforms should absolutely be made safer.

Raising the age doesn’t replace efforts to improve online safety. It creates the pressure and incentive for platforms to redesign their systems properly.

In reality we need: clear age boundaries, stronger regulation to make platforms safer, and education to help young people and parents navigate the digital world.

Won’t kids will just get around age checks?

Some will – but that has never been a reason to abandon age limits.
‍
Age limits work by setting social norms, not by catching every individual.
‍
When the rule applies to everyone, it becomes much easier for parents to say “not yet.”

Doesn’t this push children into darker corners of the internet?

There’s no evidence that would happen.
‍
Young people are on today’s dominant platforms largely because that’s where their friends are. When clear age boundaries exist, behaviour and social norms change.
‍
In practice, most young people want to be where their peer group is – not on obscure or fringe platforms.

What about the benefits of social media?

Of course technology has benefits. Young people can communicate, learn and create online in ways that previous generations couldn’t.
‍
The problem isn’t that those benefits exist – it’s that they’re currently delivered through platforms designed to maximise engagement, not wellbeing. In practice that means many children are exposed to predictable harms alongside those benefits.
‍
Raising the age simply gives young people a few more years to grow before entering those environments.

What about vulnerable children who rely on social media?

Vulnerable young people do need connection and support online.
‍
But commercial social media platforms are not designed to provide that. In practice, vulnerable children are often the most exposed to bullying, grooming, exploitation and harmful content.
‍
If we want safe digital spaces for vulnerable young people, we need to design them intentionally – not rely on commercial platforms built primarily to maximise engagement.

Aren’t age restrictions impossible to enforce?

Enforcement is a technical challenge – but it’s absolutely feasible.

The same platforms that can identify users, analyse behaviour and target advertising across billions of accounts are capable of estimating age and restricting underage access.

What matters is political will. If governments set clear rules, require robust age checks and back them up with meaningful fines, platforms will comply.

Isn’t age verification just digital ID?

No. Platforms already use highly sophisticated systems to identify users, personalise content and target advertising. Age assurance technologies can estimate age using privacy-preserving methods without storing ID documents.

This is not an impossible technical challenge. It is simply something platforms have not yet been required to do.

Why 16?

Sixteen is already a widely recognised boundary for many activities that carry risks – from driving to gambling to energy drinks.

It reflects a point where young people typically have greater independence, stronger social support networks and more developed judgement.

Social media obviously doesn’t suddenly become harmless at 16. But a typical 16-year-old is far better equipped to handle the pressures and complexities of these platforms than a typical 10, 11 or 12-year-old.

Isn’t this just moral panic?

If this were just a moral panic, you wouldn’t see parents, teachers, doctors and young people all raising the same concerns.

Families across the country are seeing the effects of these platforms in their homes, schools and communities. This isn’t panic – it’s a response to something everyone can see with their own eyes.

The real question isn’t why people are worried – it’s why we waited so long to take it seriously.