For years, parents have largely decided when children are ready to use social media. That responsibility is now increasingly being shared with governments and technology regulators.
Australia introduced restrictions preventing children under 16 from holding accounts on major platforms. The UK has also announced plans for restrictions affecting under-16s.
The debate now goes beyond whether children should use social media. Governments and child-safety organisations are considering when young people should gain access and what safeguards platforms should provide.
Why governments tighten rules?
The push for stronger restrictions has grown amid concerns about cyberbullying, harmful content, online exploitation and problematic social media use. Children can encounter risks that are difficult for parents to monitor.
The World Health Organization (WHO) reported a rise in problematic social media use among adolescents. Data from 44 countries and regions showed an increase from 7 percent in 2018 to 11 percent in 2022 among young people aged 11, 13 and 15.
The concern goes beyond screen time. UNICEF identifies online sexual exploitation and cyberbullying as major risks. This has increased calls for platforms to take greater responsibility for child safety.
Australia has set major precedent
Australia becomes one of the strongest examples of a government using legislation to delay children’s access to major social media platforms. Since December 10, 2025, age-restricted platforms have been required to take reasonable steps to prevent people under 16 from creating or keeping accounts.
The restrictions cover Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, X, Threads, Twitch and Kick. However, the rules do not make all social media content inaccessible to under-16s. Children can still view some publicly available material that does not require an account.
The distinction is important because the policy is often described simply as a social media ban. In practice, Australia’s rules focus on preventing under-16s from maintaining accounts on specified services.
UK is taking different route
The UK approached the issue through its wider online-safety framework. The Online Safety Act placed responsibilities on online services to protect children from harmful content. It has also introduced stronger requirements around age assurance.
In June 2026, the UK government announced plans for restrictions on social media services for children under 16. Ofcom is examining how effective age checks could support the proposed restriction. The regulator noted that existing age-inference methods are not sufficient to enforce an under-16 minimum age.
The approach raises a technical and privacy question. Platforms need to establish whether users are below the required age without collecting unnecessary personal information.
Can bans actually keep children safe?
A minimum age can provide a clear boundary, but it cannot remove every online risk. UNICEF warns that age restrictions alone will not keep children safe. Young users may try to bypass restrictions or move to services with weaker safeguards.
This could create a gap between legislation and behaviour. If children move from restricted platforms to less regulated services, the original safety objective may not be achieved. Enforcement is therefore as important as the age limit itself.
UNICEF also highlighted the positive role digital platforms can play. Social media can help young people maintain friendships, find communities, learn skills and express themselves.
But what could children lose?
The argument against blanket restrictions does not mean unrestricted access is safe. Digital platforms can provide opportunities for communication, learning and self-expression. Online communities can also offer support and information that may not be available offline.
UNICEF research highlighted both the opportunities and risks linked to children’s digital lives. Restricting access altogether could limit opportunities to develop digital skills at a time when technology is becoming more important in education and employment.
There is also a risk that children will attempt to bypass restrictions. Using older user’s accounts or moving between services could make online activity harder for parents and regulators to monitor.
What does mental health evidence show?
The relationship between social media and mental health is not straightforward. WHO data show an increase in problematic use, but this does not mean every child who uses social media will experience mental health problems.
UNICEF research has pointed to harmful experiences such as online bullying and sexual abuse. Such experiences can have a stronger connection with poor mental health than simply measuring how many hours a young person spends online.
This could influence future regulation. Policymakers may look beyond screen time and focus on what children see, who can contact them and how platforms respond when harmful behaviour is reported.
Age checks raise privacy concerns
Age verification has become another major issue. Platforms need to establish whether users are below a particular age. Stronger checks can also require the processing of personal information.
The challenge is to create reliable age assurance without collecting more data than necessary. Privacy has therefore become part of the wider child-safety debate.
Ofcom stressed the importance of effective age assurance while online services must also meet data-protection obligations. Governments are therefore trying to balance child safety with users’ privacy.
France pushes debate further
The issue also gained attention across Europe. French President Emmanuel Macron called for an EU-wide ban on social media access for children under 15. The proposal followed an attempt in France to introduce a national restriction that was blocked by the country’s Constitutional Council.
Macron urges the European Commission to establish a common approach. The proposal reflects concerns that different national rules could create loopholes when children access services across borders.
The European debate highlights a wider disagreement over who should decide when children are ready for social media. Some policymakers favour a clear minimum age while others believe parents should retain the main responsibility.
Protection or too much control?
The answer is unlikely to be completely one-sided. Children need protection from abuse, exploitation and harmful content. Platforms also need stronger responsibilities because parents cannot monitor every online interaction.
At the same time, keeping children away from digital spaces does not automatically teach young people how to use technology safely. Digital literacy and parental guidance remain important even where age restrictions are introduced.
As more countries consider social media restrictions, the central question is shifting from whether children should be online to what a safer digital childhood should look like. The challenge will be protecting young users without unnecessarily removing the educational, social and developmental benefits of digital access.
WE RECOMMEND | Forgotten history of dining tables and how we eat
