TL;DR
Australia has moved to require platforms to block accounts for under-16s, and there is discussion about similar steps elsewhere. The source argues a child-only ban is politically convenient but weakly justified by current evidence and inconsistent with how harms and regulation are treated for adults.
What happened
The Australian government recently moved to require social media companies to prevent people under 16 from holding accounts. That proposal has renewed debate in other countries, including occasional discussion in the UK. The author of the source piece argues against a child-only ban, saying the core question — whether social media is harmful — is often posed without considering what activities would replace it. The piece notes adults use social platforms heavily too, and most existing studies are correlational rather than demonstrating causation; better-designed research tends to weaken simple claims of harm. The author also points to precedents—children are banned from gambling and certain junk-food marketing is restricted—even though much harm from those products falls on adults. Finally, the article criticizes calls simply to “regulate it,” arguing existing UK rules (the Online Safety Act and ICO guidance) have uncertain enforcement and that a child-only ban looks politically convenient rather than principled.
Why it matters
- Policy choices focused only on children can be easier politically but may not target the populations bearing most harm.
- Current evidence about social media’s unique harm to children is inconclusive and often correlational.
- Existing regulatory frameworks may be insufficient without clear enforcement mechanisms.
- A child-only ban would create inconsistencies with how other age-restricted prohibitions and adult-targeted regulation are handled.
Key facts
- Australia has moved to require social media firms to prevent under-16s from having accounts.
- There is public discussion in the UK about following Australia’s approach.
- The author argues that ‘is social media harmful’ is a misleading question unless you compare it to replacement activities.
- Adults use social media heavily and habitually, the source argues, so children are not uniquely intensive users.
- Most studies cited on harm are correlational; stronger study designs provide less convincing evidence of unique harms.
- Brain development continues into the mid-20s, making long-term developmental impacts possible but not proven, according to the piece.
- The article notes precedents where children are banned or protected (gambling, junk food) even though adults account for much of the harm.
- The UK already has regulatory measures mentioned in the source (Online Safety Act and ICO Children’s Code), but enforcement and effectiveness are presented as unclear.
What to watch next
- Whether the UK government will formally adopt a child-only social media ban: not confirmed in the source.
- How existing UK rules such as the Online Safety Act and the ICO Children’s Code are enforced in practice: not confirmed in the source.
- Whether higher-quality, causal research emerges linking social media use specifically to long-term harm in children versus adults: not confirmed in the source.
Quick glossary
- Correlational evidence: Research showing that two factors vary together but not demonstrating that one causes the other.
- Regulation: Rules set by governments or agencies intended to control or influence the behavior of companies and individuals.
- Online Safety Act: A UK law referenced in the source that aims to impose duties on online platforms to protect users; the source notes enforcement questions.
- ICO Children’s Code: Guidance from the UK Information Commissioner’s Office focused on data protection and online safety for children, cited in the source.
Reader FAQ
Is social media definitively harmful to children?
Not confirmed in the source; the article argues evidence is often correlational and that harm depends on what activity social media would replace.
Has Australia implemented a rule blocking under-16 accounts?
Yes; the source says Australia moved to require platforms to prevent under-16s from holding accounts.
Does the source recommend banning social media only for children?
No; the author contends a child-only ban is politically convenient and not clearly principled.
Are UK regulations on online safety effective?
The source states the UK has the Online Safety Act and ICO Children’s Code but describes enforcement and impact as unclear.
Banning Things for Other People is Easy 14 January 2026 politics psychology Australia has moved to require social media companies to prevent under 16s from holding an account, and there’s…
Sources
- Banning Things for Other People Is Easy
- Social media bans for children: do they make sense?
- How will bans on social media affect children?
- A social media ban for children would actually solve …
Related posts
- As Wikipedia Marks 25 Years, Multiple Threats Cloud Its Future
- WhatsApp exempts Brazil (+55) from its new ban on third-party chatbots
- Wikipedia at 25: Facing Political Backlash, AI Scraping, and Volunteer Decline