Beyond the ban: why civil society needs a stronger voice online
The UK's proposed social media ban for under-16s has renewed debate about online harms, child safety and the responsibilities of technology companies. Yet beyond the arguments for and against the ban itself lies a bigger question: who gets to shape the digital environments in which we increasingly communicate, participate, and build community, and make sense of the world around us?
As a parent of teens, I can see the appeal of a social media ban for under 16s. Few parents will have escaped protracted negotiations over screen time, social media access and the latest app that “everyone is using”. Like many parents, I have spent many long days and nights wrestling with confusing account settings, circuitous parental controls and an endless stream of new apps and platforms, to keep them as safe as possible. Charities, campaigners, researchers and communities have spent years documenting harms, advocating for safer online spaces and demonstrating how digital technologies can be used to strengthen participation, belonging and wellbeing, but their voices have been competing with increasingly powerful commercial incentives.
Social media business models are built around algorithms that reward outrage and division, and an ever-growing volume of misleading, manipulative and AI-generated content seeps into our homes and pockets. Social media has been a factor in the dramatic rise of mental health issues, online abuse and screen addiction. Of course, some families have suffered far worse than this, with social media playing a part in the deaths of several young people, in the most horrific circumstances. It is increasingly clear that existing measures have not gone far enough in challenging the business models and design choices that have become emblematic of modern life, despite growing evidence of the harms they can create.
The pros and cons of an under 16s ban
An outright ban therefore offers something that many parents have been craving: simplicity. It sends a clear message to children and young people about expectations and boundaries, supporting parents to prohibit engagement until later in life. It also sends an important message to technology companies. Despite years of platform promises, regulatory reforms and implementation of the Online Safety Act, continuing concerns about exposure to harmful and explicit content, addictive design features, the role of algorithms in amplifying damaging material, and the risks of online grooming, exploitation and abuse can no longer be dismissed as unfortunate side effects of innovation. If technology companies want to engage young people in the UK, they must demonstrate that they can do so safely.
Yet while the simplicity of a ban is appealing, the evidence is far less straightforward. Many experts argue that there is limited evidence that bans are effective in practice, raising concerns about enforcement, circumvention and unintended consequences1. While social media undoubtedly exposes young people to harm, it also provides opportunities for learning, creativity, friendship, loyalty and access to support, particularly for those who feel isolated offline. Restricting access may therefore reduce some harms while also limiting opportunities for participation, connection and support. It may also encourage some young people to migrate to less visible or less regulated online spaces, where risks could become harder to identify and address. Furthermore, the need for age verification and formal identification raises questions about online privacy for all UK internet users, not only young people.
What does this mean for participation and public life?
This raises important questions for civil society. Many organisations use social media to connect young people with support, advice, volunteering opportunties and communities of shared interest. If access to social media is restricted, many charities and community organisations will need to rethink how they reach and engage younger audiences while ensuring that trusted sources of information and support remain visible and accessible, for example through greater use of apps, messaging services and newsletters. However, many charities, particularly those that are smaller, local or under-resourced, will find this challenging.
There are also wider questions about participation and public life. In the absence of social media, search engines, AI chatbots and other recommendation systems are likely to play an even greater role in helping young people find information, support and services. Without careful oversight, this proposal risks concentrating even more power in the hands of an even small number of technology companies acting as gatekeepers to participation, information and public life.
And there remains a bigger question, because the need for safety online does not just pertain to children and young people. Any debate about social media restrictions should be accompanied by greater responsibilities for technology companies to ensure safety for all users, particularly women, people with disabilities and people of colour, who continue to experience disproportionate levels of online harassment and abuse. Ultimately, the challenge is how we create digital spaces that are safe, inclusive and supportive of participation for everyone.
Reimagining online spaces for participation and belonging
When the internet first emerged, it was envisioned as a new town square – somewhere people could exchange ideas, participate in civic life, build relationships and form communities around shared interests and concerns. For all its faults, social media still enables some of this. It remains one of the most powerful and accessible tools available for raising awareness, building communities, mobilising support, fundraising, and amplifying under-represented voices.
The challenge now is for technology companies, if they are serious about creating safer and more inclusive digital environments, to work more closely with charities, communities and researchers, drawing on their expertise in supporting vulnerable people, building trust and fostering healthy participation. If they cannot demonstrate meaningful progress, governments and regulators are likely to face increasing pressure to impose restrictions that would once have seemed politically unthinkable.
Communications for social good
For civil society, there is a growing need to stay abreast of developments in communication, digital and AI technologies so that trusted organisations remain visible and accessible. In an increasingly complex information environment, it is crucial for charities and other non-profits to be effectively supported to make the most of communication technologies in ways that build stronger relationships, more resilient communities and offer greater opportunities for people to participate in the issues that affect their lives.
To support charities with these challenges, DSC offers a range of resources and professional development opportunities. If you are engaged in communication on behalf of a charity or community organisation, you may find the following events and publications helpful.
