Starmer said the ban<\/a> would be in effect by early 2027 and cover all the major social platforms, including YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook and X.<\/p>\n Additional restrictions would prevent strangers from contacting children on gaming and livestreaming platforms. Under-18s would also be barred from using so-called AI \u201cromantic companion\u201d chatbots designed to simulate sexual relationships or roleplay, while similar intimate functionalities on other AI chatbots would be restricted. Messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal would remain exempt.<\/p>\n Starmer said Britain\u2019s ban was \u201cgoing further than any country in the world\u201d and \u201cputting wider protections in place to give kids their childhood back.\u201d<\/p>\n Britain joins a growing number of countries<\/a> restricting children\u2019s access to social media as evidence mounts about the harms of addictive platforms. The European Union is considering a bloc-wide ban across its 27 member states. Denmark and France are expected to become the first European countries to prohibit social media use for children under 15 later this year.<\/p>\n \u201cIt stops children doing their homework, reading, playing with their friends outside, going to bed at a decent hour,\u201d Starmer, the father of two teenagers, said. \u201cNow that may not sound like much, but these are the activities that help a child develop into an adult.\u201d<\/p>\n Major technology platforms warned against a ban, arguing it would push children to unregulated, riskier platforms and that they have taken steps to protect young people through age restrictions, algorithmic limits and parental controls.<\/p>\n \u201cYouTube is a vital resource for young people, educators and parents,\u201d the company said, as reported by British media. YouTube is owned by Alphabet, Google\u2019s umbrella company.<\/p>\n It added: \u201cBlanket bans push kids out of such curated, supervised, beneficial experiences and towards anonymous, less safe services.\u201d<\/p>\n Some saw politics behind Starmer\u2019s announcement, arguing he is trying to shore up his legacy amid poor approval ratings, the Labour Party\u2019s heavy local election losses<\/a> and growing speculation about his leadership.<\/p>\n Public support appears strong. More than 90% of 116,000 respondents backed the proposal during a public comment period, the government said. Polls<\/a> generally show broad support for a ban on children\u2019s social media use, though many Britons remain skeptical about how effective it would be.<\/p>\n Critics, however, remain unconvinced.<\/p>\n One critic is the Molly Rose Foundation, a British nonprofit that campaigns to raise awareness about the harms social media can pose to young people.<\/p>\n The foundation was established in memory of Molly Rose Russell, a 14-year-old London girl who died by suicide in 2017. A coroner concluded that harmful social media content contributed to her depression and death. Her family said \u201calgorithmically recommended material related to suicide, self-harm and depression material\u201d led her \u201cdown a rabbit hole of despair.\u201d<\/p>\n On Monday, the group said a ban did not go far enough and would do little to safeguard children.<\/p>\n \u201cA social media ban will fail to tackle fundamental product safety risks issues and leaves parents with a false sense of safety,\u201d said Andy Burrows, the group\u2019s chief executive. \u201cA majority of children will continue to use high risk sites that will have no incentive to implement robust protections.\u201d<\/p>\n Critics point to Australia, the first country to ban children from social media in December 2025. Results have been mixed, with many children reporting they can easily circumvent the restrictions, most commonly through virtual private networks, or VPNs.<\/p>\n The Molly Rose Foundation wants to outlaw<\/a> addictive platform design, impose stricter age-verification requirements and hold senior managers accountable for product safety risks.<\/p>\n Amnesty International UK warned<\/a> a blanket ban was a \u201cblunt tool\u201d and \u201cthe wrong prescription\u201d for shielding children from harm on social media. It advocated forcing tech companies to change their behavior.<\/p>\n \u201cThe problem is not that children exist on social media; it\u2019s that social media companies have built platforms that are unsafe by design,\u201d said Kerry Moscogiuri, the head of Amnesty International UK. \u201cToo many social media companies have built products and business models that prioritize keeping children engaged for longer, often at the expense of their well-being, privacy and rights.\u201d<\/p>\n It said social media is where many young people \u201clearn, connect with friends, find support, organize around issues they care about and make their voices heard.\u201d<\/p>\n It urged the government to focus on \u201cending invasive profiling of children, tackling addictive and manipulative design features.\u201d<\/p>\n Other critics warned the under-16s ban would lead to intrusive age-verification systems, such as a \u201cdigital ID,\u201d for people over 16 too.<\/p>\n \u201cThe British people have always, rightly, rejected mandatory ID schemes,\u201d said<\/a> Jack Coulson with Big Brother Watch, a London-based digital rights group. \u201cNow the government is imposing digital ID checkpoints for the internet \u2026. We will all face a \u2018papers, please\u2019 demand to get online.\u201d<\/p>\n The ban will provoke more friction with the United States, which has denounced European and British actions to regulate American tech companies.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a line in the sand,\u201d Starmer said. \u201cTech giants had their chance and failed, but we\u2019re stepping in to protect children, back parents and set a new normal for future generations.\u201d<\/p>\n Courthouse News reporter Cain Burdeau is based in the European Union.<\/p>\n