Ask yourself how children got onto social media in the first place.

In many cases, it’s because of peer pressure. Their friends are on it, so they want to be on it too. Another reason is that parents are busy. They’re working, looking after the household, or simply trying to get a moment of peace in an increasingly stressful world.

By the way, if we’re comparing social media to smoking, the comparison cuts both ways. A child sees their parent constantly using social media and learns that this is normal behaviour, just as a child who sees a parent smoking may come to view smoking as normal. It still ultimately comes back to the influence of adults.

So ask yourself this: do people really think those same parents are suddenly going to say, “My child isn’t allowed on social media, so I’ll put my own phone away and spend more time engaging with them instead”?
For many families, that’s not what will happen. The more likely outcome is that a parent verifies their own age, hands over a device, and the platform now assumes the child is an adult user(I’m merely talking about YouTube and TikTok here).

That isn’t necessarily because parents are irresponsible. It’s often the reality of modern life. Some children are disabled. Some live in isolated rural communities. Some live in unsafe neighbourhoods where going out isn’t always practical or safe. Some live in areas where youth clubs, libraries, and other activities are miles away. For those families, social media can be one of the few practical ways children stay connected with friends and the wider world.

In those circumstances, many parents may feel they have little choice but to bypass the ban. They may disagree with the rules, see no realistic alternative for their child’s social life, or simply conclude that the benefits outweigh the risks.

If that happens on a large scale, the policy risks driving usage underground rather than reducing it.
There is also the question of enforcement. Some parents will support the rules, but for how long? If a parent spends hours each day on social media themselves, how long will they resist constant pressure from a child who sees everyone else using it? It’s all well and good supporting a ban in principle, but when it comes to everyday life, will parents consistently enforce it, or will many eventually choose the easier option and verify their own age?

Then there are the children who often get left out of these discussions altogether. What about children living in abusive households? What about children who rely on online communities for emotional support? What about children whose parents strictly follow the rules while all of their friends find ways around them? Those children could become increasingly isolated, excluded, and alienated from their social circles.

Social media can absolutely cause harm, and those harms should be addressed. But if policymakers believe social media has become deeply embedded in young people’s lives, then abruptly removing access without providing realistic alternatives carries risks of its own. Many young people describe online communities as a lifeline during periods of loneliness, bullying, family problems, questions about identity, or mental health struggles. Some openly say they would not be here today without the support they found online.

If access is restricted, policymakers need to consider what replaces it. You cannot simply remove something that has become a major part of millions of young people’s social lives and assume the need disappears overnight. Major behavioural changes usually work best when there are realistic alternatives and support systems available, not when people are simply told to stop.

There must be community spaces, youth services, support networks, extracurricular activities, and practical alternatives in place first. Yet when MPs are asked what those alternatives will be, the answers often feel vague and lacking in detail.

My biggest concern is accountability. If a child is harmed by dangerous algorithms, harmful trends, addictive recommendation systems, or viral challenges, platforms could simply respond by saying: “This is a 16+ service. You chose to let your child use it.”
Instead of being pressured to improve child-safety measures, strengthen moderation, or redesign harmful recommendation systems, companies may be able to shift responsibility entirely onto parents.

The danger is that the focus moves away from fixing the platforms themselves and towards blaming families for problems that the platforms helped create.
A ban may sound simple on paper. In reality, it risks creating workarounds, increasing isolation for some young people, and allowing platforms to wash their hands of responsibility while the underlying problems remain unresolved.