The Government’s plan to ban under-16s from social media has divided Lancashire Telegraph readers and parents, with dozens sharing their views online.
Announced by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, the ban is set to come into effect by spring next year, with technology firms responsible for enforcing it.
The move aims to protect children from online harm, including bullying and dangerous content, and from the addictive design of social media algorithms, but its effectiveness is already under debate among local parents and residents.
Many readers expressed doubt over whether the restrictions would work in practice.
One person said: “Surely with a VPN you can instantly bypass it.”
Another echoed that, writing: “It’s a good idea in theory, but many children will find a way to bypass it.”
There were also concerns about how the law will be applied, with one reader commenting: “There’s currently no real clarity about how it’ll work or what it’ll involve.”
Others questioned whether the Government should be involved in managing children’s social media use.
One wrote: “It is up to the parents to ban them, not the Government.”
Another said: “A controversial idea, but why can’t parents keep a check on what their children are doing?”
The sentiment that parents, not politicians, are best placed to make these decisions was clear, with one reader adding: “I don’t agree with being told how to parent my children.”
Yet some locals welcomed the move, raising concerns about child safety online.
“Yes, I do agree to this, as so many children have ended their lives through people bullying,” one reader said.
Another commented: “Yes! Yes! Yes! They should never have been allowed in the first place.”
There were also calls for young people to be included in the discussion. One reader suggested: “Yes, but involve some young people in the discussions and debate around the new law.”
Another respondent argued that a ban might go too far and be counterproductive: “It’s a heavy-handed, rushed, ridiculous approach to a nuanced issue... it restricts their access to a lot of things that benefit young people.
"Social media has some faults, but it has many gains. It educates young children.”
Others warned the ban could simply push children to find alternative platforms.
“Won’t make any difference, they will find another way around it, or end up on another site,” said one commenter.
Another described the plan as a “complete and utter waste of time and taxpayers’ money”.
Opposition MPs and campaigners have made themselves heard, too. Some campaigners worry a ban will only push children toward “less regulated spaces”.
As the government prepares to roll out detailed age assurance checks, the debate is far from over. For now, the plan has sparked concerns, hopes, and calls for more clarity across the community.
The Prime Minister announced the ban in response to concerns social media is unsafe, making children miserable and could cause lasting damage to their mental health.
He acknowledged some youngsters would try to find their way around a ban but said he would not compromise on the “safety and happiness of our children”.
The restrictions, set to be passed by Christmas and in place by spring next year, will leave technology firms, rather than children, liable for enforcement action if they fail to comply.
There will also be measures to prevent children from chatting with adults on gaming and livestreaming platforms.
The ban is expected to cover platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X, but not messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal.
Read more
Sir Keir suggested YouTube Kids, Lego Play and Google Classroom would not be covered by the prohibition.
The Government intends to use highly effective age assurance (HEAA) measures to make it more difficult for children to dodge the ban.
Those methods could include facial age estimates, photo ID or bank checks according to guidance from the regulator Ofcom.
Share