Social media is a huge part of modern society for so many people, but the NSPCC has serious concerns about how it puts children in harm’s way.
We estimate that over 2.5 million children are accessing social media despite being under the minimum age requirements of the platforms, and we know the number of online crimes against children is significant.
Last year, police recorded 7,263 sexual communication offences with a child, and forces across England and Wales recorded an average of more than 100 child sexual abuse image offences every day in 2024/25 – more than 37,000 in total.
New data from Childline reveals that between April 2025 and March 2026, the NSPCC-run service delivered 2,444 counselling sessions about online child sexual abuse and exploitation, marking a 36% annual increase.
For months now, there has been talk about a potential social media ban for under-16s being implemented by the UK Government, following similar legislation in Australia.
At first glance, you may think this seems like a neat solution, but the NSPCC believes there are better ways to keep children safe online.
Our call to the Government on this matter consists of three main asks which we believe would tackle the real problems in a way which goes much further than a simple ban.
Firstly, young people must get a genuinely age-appropriate experience online. Minimum age limits should reflect the safety and risk of harm on a platform. We set age-appropriate limits for films and gaming, and online platforms should be the same.
By enforcing their own age limits, social media companies would protect 2.5 million children from online harms like grooming or abuse. The technology is there, but a choice has been made to prioritise profit over safety and let families deal with the fallout.
Second, platforms must stop using addictive design tools to keep young people scrolling endlessly and leave them feeling out of control. Current features keep teenagers hooked, endlessly scrolling, receiving constant notifications, and include algorithms that push extreme content. We want to see these design tricks removed and give teens a safer experience.
And third, we need the Government to use the full force of the law to block illegal and harmful content at the source to help prevent it ever reaching young peoples’ feeds across the platforms they are using – including AI chatbots, gaming and messaging services. Tech companies have the tools to stop illegal and dangerous material being created, shared or viewed, but they’re not using them consistently.
A ban for under-16s would be better than the status quo. The longer we and the Government accept the inaction of tech firms in protecting children on their platforms, the greater the number of young people who will experience harm online – harm which could have devastating consequences for them and their families.
However, this is the time for our Government to be brave. To stand up for our children and against the tech firms, and to create an online world which is safer for generations to come.
Public consultation on the proposals on the Government’s website recently ended, and we are waiting to see the outcome.
Whatever the result, it’s important that the choice does not boil down to a simple choice of ‘ban or no ban’ but considers potential solutions and ensures the voices of parents, carers and children across the country are heard.
Our young people are being exposed to addictive and harmful content using platforms which have chosen not to offer a safer environment.
Laws must be strengthened, regulators must take swift and severe action where platforms put children at risk, and tech companies can no longer be let off the hook for endangering young people.
Ultimately, this process can only be judged on whether it swiftly leads to safer, healthier, age-appropriate online lives for our children.
Yes, a ban would be better than no change at all.
But there is a safer, smarter and bolder approach which would tackle the root causes of online abuse, harm and addiction that is causing so much disruption and damage to children’s lives.