When MPs voted down a proposed ban on social media for under-16s, Labour was not resisting some eccentric, obscure backbench crusade. It was defying a policy backed by 74% of the public, approved by the House of Lords by 261 votes to 150, and supported by more than 60 Labour MPs before the Commons even got its turn. On 9 March, ministers still told MPs to reject it, and the amendment fell by 307 votes to 173.
A pattern has well and truly emerged. Keir Starmer’s government keeps finding itself on the wrong side of public opinion, ignoring the majority, then sheepishly turning back when the backlash becomes impossible to ignore. It happened on winter fuel payments, on the farm inheritance tax row, on the grooming gangs inquiry, and now it has happened again on online child safety.
Social Media Ban Broadly Supported, Labour Still Says No
The proposed ban was not politically marginal. A YouGov poll published on 2 December 2025 found that 74% of Britons supported banning children under 16 from having social media accounts. The measure then passed the Lords in January, giving Labour a ready-made chance to claim it was taking online harms seriously. Instead, ministers opposed it.
That alone would’ve looked weak. But what makes it worse is that Labour wasn’t battling against opposition benches – the party was internally misaligned. More than 60 Labour MPs had urged Starmer to support the ban before the Lords vote, and when the Commons vote finally came, 107 Labour MPs abstained. That is not a sign of a settled governing party. It is a sign of ministers forcing through a line many of their own MPs did not want to defend.
The government tried to excuse itself by claiming a blanket ban might push children to less regulated parts of the internet, instead insisting that a consultation would produce a better response. It sounds sophisticated, but most parents know it’s just another delay.
The Grim Numbers Supporting the Ban
Labour’s caution looks even weaker when set against the evidence on what heavy social media use is doing to children. The U.S. Surgeon General’s 2023 advisory said adolescents who spend more than three hours a day on social media face double the risk of poor mental health outcomes, including symptoms of depression and anxiety. The same advisory warned that adolescence is a particularly sensitive period of brain development and said there is not yet enough evidence to conclude social media is sufficiently safe for children and teenagers.
It’s not just about low mood, either. The Surgeon General’s review found a consistent link between social media use and poor sleep quality, reduced sleep duration, sleep difficulties, and depression among young people. It also reported that 46% of adolescents aged 13 to 17 say social media makes them feel worse about their body image. Separate Ofcom research on cyberbullying in the UK found practitioners linking prolonged online bullying to self-harm, suicidal ideation, and eating-disorder-related behaviour, with children describing online abuse as more pervasive because it follows them constantly rather than ending at the school gate.
International data all points in the same direction. The World Health Organization reported in 2024 that 11% of adolescents showed signs of problematic social media behaviour, with girls worse affected than boys, and said problematic users reported lower mental and social well-being along with higher levels of substance use. At the same time, Ofcom found that despite most major platforms having a minimum age of 13, 55% of British children aged 3 to 12 were already using at least one social media app or site in 2024.
So, while Labour flounder under the guise of consultation, they are simultaneously ignoring the numbers. The damage online platforms are doing to our children is thoroughly documented worldwide – it is not a speculative problem.
Australia Proves the Point with Social Media Restrictions
Labour’s hesitation looks even thinner when set against Australia, which became the first country to enforce a national social media ban for under-16s on 10 December 2025. Reuters reported that the move was welcomed by many parents and child advocates, even as technology firms objected. Within the first month, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner said platforms had deactivated, removed or restricted about 4.7 million under-16 accounts to comply with the law.
Of course, the policy isn’t flawless. Some teenagers have found workarounds, and critics say enforcement remains uneven. But the central point is obvious enough. Australia acted, and the policy had an immediate effect on account numbers at scale. Communications minister Anika Wells called it “a huge achievement” and said that even at an early stage, every account taken down could mean “one extra young person with more free time to build their community and identity offline.”
Free Speech Infringement, or Finally Drawing a Line?
Opponents of an under-16 ban will argue that it restricts young people’s access to information, debate, and online communities, and there is a legitimate civil-liberties point buried in that objection. UNICEF has warned that some measures designed to keep children safe online can also undermine children’s rights to freedom of expression if they are drafted too broadly. Ofcom has made a similar point in its own online-safety work, saying protections for children must be balanced against rights including freedom of expression and privacy. That concern should not simply be waved away, particularly when governments have a habit of reaching for blunt instruments.
However, the overwhelming majority of public support points to a preference for stronger protection. Giving children full access to pornography, gambling, or harmful substances might technically mean they have liberty – but it would also mean allowing them to come to obvious harm. Supporters of the under-16 social media ban draw these very comparisons. Ofcom says the new online safety rules are intended to create “a safer generation of children online,” while UNICEF’s more recent work has called for stronger legislation and greater accountability from digital platforms to protect children from bullying, abuse, and harmful content.
Framed that way, an under-16 ban looks less like censorship and more like an overdue recognition that childhood should not be handed over to an industry built on addiction, exposure, and behavioural manipulation.
Final Thought
Labour had the public behind the ban, the Lords behind the ban, mounting concern from its own MPs, and a growing body of evidence linking heavy social media use to anxiety, depression, bullying, self-harm, and wider developmental harm among children. It still chose hesitation. Ministers can dress that up as balance, consultation, or caution, but it looks far more like a floundering government once again misreading the public and shrinking from a decision that was both politically defensible and morally serious. The more this debate unfolds, the harder it becomes to argue that an under-16 ban is some radical overreach. It is beginning to look like one of the few proportionate responses left.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: UK News