UK and France weigh social media bans, but age checks create vast privacy risks
By isabelle // 2026-01-22
Copy
 
  • Australia bans social media for under-16s, with millions of accounts already blocked.
  • The UK and France are now considering similar nationwide bans.
  • Supporters cite a youth mental health crisis to justify the aggressive move.
  • Critics warn of scientific debate over harm and serious unintended consequences.
  • Enforcement requires invasive age verification, creating major privacy risks for all.
A digital curtain is descending on the youth of the Western world. Following Australia’s unprecedented move to ban social media for anyone under 16, governments in the United Kingdom and France are now actively considering similar nationwide restrictions. This aggressive regulatory push, framed as a necessary public health intervention to combat a youth mental health crisis, is igniting a fierce global debate over evidence, efficacy, and the erosion of digital privacy. Australia became the first nation to implement such a sweeping prohibition last month, barring access to platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook for those 16 and younger. The early results are staggering: The country’s online safety watchdog reports that tech companies have already blocked 4.7 million accounts suspected of belonging to underage users. This real-world experiment is now a pivotal test case being closely watched by other nations. The political momentum is building rapidly. In the UK, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has declared the government is prepared to take “robust action,” stating that childhood should not mean “being pulled into a world of endless scrolling, anxiety and comparison.” His government has launched a formal consultation on an Australian-style ban. Meanwhile, in France, President Emmanuel Macron is championing legislation for a ban targeting those under 15. The driving force behind this political shift is a potent narrative, popularized by figures like American psychologist Jonathan Haidt, that social media is rewiring the brains of children and "causing an epidemic of mental illness.” Supporters of the bans argue that decisive action is long overdue. They point to research, such as a recent review by France’s public health watchdog ANSES, which found numerous detrimental effects linked to social media use, particularly for adolescent girls. “Social media is appallingly toxic,” French psychiatrist Serge Tisseron told AFP, echoing the sentiments of many concerned parents and policymakers.

A nuanced scientific landscape

However, the scientific community is far from unanimous. Haidt’s thesis, while influential in political circles, has been labeled “not supported by science” by critics like Canadian psychologist Candice Odgers. The core of the academic dispute lies in the strength of the causal link between social media use and psychological harm. Researcher Michael Noetel at the University of Queensland acknowledges “plenty of evidence” of harm but suggests the debate often demands an unrealistic level of proof. He considers a ban “a bet worth making” given the potential benefits. Other studies caution against a blanket, one-size-fits-all approach. Research led by Ben Singh at the University of Adelaide, tracking more than 100,000 young Australians, found a U-shaped relationship between social media use and wellbeing. The young people with the worst outcomes were those who used social media heavily (more than two hours a day) or not at all. “The findings suggest that both excessive restriction and excessive use can be problematic,” Singh told AFP. The study indicated that moderate users fared the best, and that being entirely deprived of social media was most detrimental for older teenage boys.

The privacy paradox of protection

This complexity highlights the potential for unintended consequences. Critics, including a coalition of 42 child safety and suicide prevention charities in the UK, warn a blanket ban creates a “false sense of safety” and could push harmful activity underground while depriving young people of positive online communities. Furthermore, the mechanism of enforcement itself introduces a grave new risk: the systemic violation of privacy. To comply with such laws, social media platforms are forced to implement stringent age verification. This inevitably means collecting highly sensitive personal data from all users, including adults, such as government-issued ID documents or biometric selfies. This creates a honeypot of personal information that becomes a prime target for hackers and data breaches. The very tools meant to protect children could expose entire populations to unprecedented identity theft and fraud. Even proponents like Tisseron express concern, fearing tech-savvy teens would find a way around a ban while absolving parents of responsibility. He calls for more nuanced regulation instead of a polarized choice between an outright ban or nothing. As the UK and France weigh their options, the world is watching Australia. Cambridge University researcher Amy Orben noted, “Within a year, we should know much more about how effective the Australian social media ban has been and whether it led to any unintended consequences.” The fundamental question remains whether protecting young minds from perceived digital harms justifies normalizing pervasive digital surveillance for everyone. In the rush to safeguard a generation, we may be quietly constructing a system where privacy itself becomes a casualty. Sources for this article include: TechXplore.com Reuters.com BBC.com
Copy