A child psychiatrist has set out a decade of clinical observations detailing the profound psychological and social damage inflicted on young people by social media, as the government’s proposed blanket ban for under-16s sparks both hope and fierce debate.
Dr Rory Conn, a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist based in Exeter, said that hearing Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s announcement this week gave him an optimism he had not felt “for years” regarding the mental health of young people. In a letter published following the announcement, Dr Conn described the harms he has witnessed in clinic as extending “far beyond the visible issues of self-harm, suicidality and eating disorders.”
He reported a pervasive pattern of bullying, the normalisation of misogyny and racism, and what he called “the quiet erosion of time, attention and self-worth through endless, valueless scrolling.” Increasingly, he said, children are turning to artificial substitutes for connection — chatbots and curated feeds — in an online environment that “often fosters hostility rather than support.” Dr Conn detailed deeply troubling cases: boys groomed into criminal exploitation while on their phones in school, girls meeting adult strangers from their bedrooms, and teenagers exchanging explicit images “as if it were expected.” Many young people, he added, now live almost entirely online, with sleep, physical activity and family relationships deteriorating accordingly. “Their attachment to devices resembles addiction,” he wrote.
The psychiatrist stressed that while those seen in clinical services may represent the most affected, countless others experience “subtler but cumulative harms — rising anxiety, reduced happiness and diminishing capacity for real-world relationships.” He noted that platforms are “carefully engineered, drawing on behavioural principles akin to gambling, to maximise engagement.” Drawing a parallel to past public health measures, Dr Conn argued that the proposed ban should be viewed in the same light as cycle safety laws or smoking bans — initially controversial but now accepted as necessary. “If we are serious about safeguarding children, decisive action is overdue,” he concluded.
Official data supports the scale of the problem. According to government figures cited in the research briefing, 93% of UK teenagers aged 12-15 use social media regularly, with 42% checking accounts multiple times an hour. Nearly half of teens aged 16-18 — 48% — report feeling addicted, a figure that rises to 57% among girls compared with 37% among boys. Research also shows that nearly half of all girls (47%) and a third of all teenagers (34%) saw suicide, self-harm and eating disorder content on social media in a single week. Online grooming crimes have reached record levels: Sexual Communication with a Child offences recorded by police increased by 89% between 2017/18 and 2023/24, exceeding 7,000 offences. Snapchat was the most common platform used in these offences (48% of cases where the means of communication was known), and 81% of grooming victims are girls.
The government has said the ban, expected to come into force in Spring 2027, will be modelled on Australia’s approach, restricting access to user-to-user platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, X, Threads, Twitch, Kick and Reddit. Messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal, as well as YouTube Kids and Google Classroom, will be exempt. Additional restrictions will block features like livestreaming and communication with strangers for under-16s across a wider range of online services, including gaming sites, and these will be off by default for 16- and 17-year-olds. Overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for under-18s are also under consideration, with more details expected in July. AI chatbots designed to simulate romantic or sexual relationships will require a minimum age of 18, with similar intimate functionalities restricted for under-18s on other AI chatbots. The government intends to use secondary legislation under the Online Safety Act 2023, and Ofcom has been tasked with a rapid study on effective age assurance methods, with findings due by October 2026.
A teenager’s view: ‘We’re being treated like a monolith’
Clara O’Grady, a 16-year-old from York, offered a counterpoint to the ban, arguing that it fails to address the realities of growing up online. “It’s always been my dream to exist in a world that uses snail mail, fanzines and social clubs,” she wrote, “but this ban on social media for under-16s is not setting the foundations for a screen-free utopia. Instead, it’s scolding teens for living in the online world we were born into.”
Ms O’Grady said she does not disagree with the principle that phones are harmful, but argued that social media is “not an isolated section of our lives that can easily be removed.” She pointed to positives: revision resources, tutorials for hobbies, and fandoms to engage with. “Not once have I heard anyone — lawmakers or parents — consider what will fill those cracks when they are crudely hollowed out,” she said. “Why don’t they speak to us?” She described herself as part of “a lost generation in the eyes of the government,” adding: “We’re being treated like one huge monolith, all obsessed with vaping and phones, and strange cryptic memes that parents will never be able to understand.”
Her perspective echoes findings from the national consultation that informed the policy: while 9 in 10 parents backed a ban for under-16s, two-thirds of young people themselves agreed that under-16s should not use at least some social media platforms — indicating a nuanced view even among the intended targets.
Technical solutions: Interoperability and regulation of platforms
Rather than a blanket ban, some commentators have proposed technical and regulatory alternatives. Dr Peter Jarrett of London pointed to the concept of “administerability” outlined by author and activist Cory Doctorow in his 2025 book Enshittification. Doctorow’s idea, Dr Jarrett explained, involves requiring “interoperability” between platforms, meaning that lists of contacts, groups and other data that keep users on a given platform could be moved between platforms without difficulty. “Users recognising the toxic effects of using one can easily move to another which is less disturbing,” Dr Jarrett wrote. He added that if differences between platforms became well-known, parents might find it easier to encourage their children to use less harmful ones “rather than have a losing fight over a ban.” Doctorow’s broader argument — that platforms degrade over time by prioritising profit over user well-being — aligns with calls for structural regulation of algorithms and design features.
Tony Side of Hitchin, Hertfordshire, described the ban as “a hasty and lazy response that will only punish the victims, not the perpetrators.” He argued that just as there are hygiene rules for food production, there need to be strict limits and controls on how platform features operate, protecting everyone “not just those under an arbitrary age limit.” He warned that bans are an incentive for “creatively tech-savvy generations to find and exploit workarounds, or simply to lie.”
Ian Russell, the campaigner for online safety whose daughter Molly died after viewing harmful content, has also expressed disappointment with the ban, arguing that the focus should instead be on obliging social media companies to alter their algorithms.
Critics question enforceability and call for broader approach
The practical enforceability of the ban has been widely questioned. Critics note that young people are often adept at circumventing restrictions, potentially pushing them towards less regulated or more dangerous platforms. Professor Andy Phippen, professor of IT ethics and digital rights, has voiced scepticism about a blanket ban. Mental health charities including the Mental Health Foundation, Centre for Mental Health, Mind, and Anna Freud have all welcomed action but emphasised that a ban alone is not a sufficient response to the youth mental health crisis. They point to other key drivers: financial insecurity, deteriorating sleep quality, reduced access to youth services, systemic inequalities, and broader societal pressures. The NSPCC has highlighted the record levels of online grooming, with Snapchat and Facebook commonly used, and reiterated that most victims are girls and that very young children are also targeted.
Ofcom’s rapid study on age assurance methods, due by October 2026, will be critical to determining whether the ban can be practically enforced. The regulator will also review its enforcement capabilities. Regulations are expected to be laid before Parliament before Christmas 2026, with protections coming into force in Spring 2027.