British teens resist Australian-style social media ban

British teenagers, like their peers abroad, have a conflicted relationship with social media. They know it can feed them a diet of "brain rot" content that keeps them glued to their phones while making money for big tech. Yet it is central to their lives, and many do ​not think it is the government's job to ban it.

Britain, like other countries in Europe and beyond, is considering ways to restrict social media after becoming increasingly aware of the risks to children. It ‌could follow Australia in imposing a ban for under-16s.

The government has asked "everyone with a view" to contribute to a public consultation, which closes in May.

Young people aged 16 to 18 at one south London school said Snapchat, Instagram and TikTok helped them socialise, make new connections and learn about the world.

But there were downsides: the platforms sometimes left them unhappy or exhausted, vulnerable to bullying and harmful content, and they knew the apps were designed to keep them scrolling.

Glued to phones for hours a day

"During the summer, I'd spend around eight hours a day on just TikTok," ​said Awand Khdir, 17, who added there was little else to do on that platform besides scrolling.

"But now it's more like three or four hours. It's still not good."

"Doom scrolling is an issue on its own, ​but... the content that you see sometimes, especially on TikTok, there's a lot of dodgy stuff".

TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat pointed to the safety, privacy and security features they have for ⁠teenage users.

Snapchat has age-specific protections for 13 to 17-year-olds, including making the account private by default and no access to public profiles for younger teens.

Instagram Teen Accounts offers a sensitive content control setting and the platform offers supervision tools for ​parents and guardians.

TikTok's teen accounts set an automatic screen time limit of 60 minutes and users are prompted to switch off after 10pm, according to a spokesperson. TikTok also age-restricts content that may not be suitable for teens.

But the young ​people Reuters interviewed said they were able to get round controls.

While many parents and politicians back a ban, some psychologists and researchers say there is no proof that it would work.

Research Professor Amy Orben from the University of Cambridge said the impact of social media was far from uniform, stressing that while some teens face significant risks, for many others, the platforms serve as a valuable means of connection.

"The online world, like the offline world, is very complex and its impacts will be very dynamic," she said.

Sumiksha Senthuran, 16, said "mindlessly scrolling" was a good ​contrast to the stress of revision for exams.

Elizabeth Alayande, 17, said social media could help build confidence and identity.

"You can express yourself by posting videos or just relating with other people... and I don't think it's the biggest waste of ​time if you spread it out evenly with other priorities," she said. But the teenagers had been exposed to distressing content and online abuse.

"Sometimes it's quite negative because all you see is bad stuff… it's quite tiring," said Teyanna Charley, 17. Vish Ragutharan, 16, who has created ‌his own ⁠blog about film, agreed. He said his posts could attract negative as well as positive responses, which was a "real disadvantage".

Some of the students were fed content about body image.

"When you see other girls on TikTok, you kind of want to look like them. And that's really crushing people's self-esteem," said Joelle Azebaze Ayangma, 18.

Difficulty of enforcing a ban

Despite knowing of the risks of social media, the pupils were mostly opposed to a ban.

Ali Raza, 16, uses apps to communicate with family abroad. Dua Arshia, 16, said restrictions could push young people towards platforms "where there's more dangerous things," and Leah Osando, 17, said enforcement would be difficult.

"Even if children get banned... they'll go onto the dark web or use a VPN," said Osando.

Some teenagers also described ​the risk of not recognising ever more sophisticated AI-generated content.

Three ​experts, all of whom have advised lawmakers on children's ⁠internet safety, said there was no clear evidence that bans work.

One-fifth of Australian teenagers under 16 were still using social media two months after the ban, industry data showed, raising questions about the effectiveness of platforms' age-gating methods.

The experts said pressure should be placed on social media companies to build safer platforms, as algorithm-driven feeds become increasingly addictive and in some cases, ​direct children towards pro-anorexia or self-harm videos.

"These are commercial platforms," Orben said. "They are designed to harness attention, and ... young people are increasingly saying that they struggle to get off."

Professor ​Julia Davidson, an expert in child ⁠online safety from the University of East London, said for children over 13, it may already be too late. British regulator Ofcom in 2022 said six in ten children aged eight to 12 had social media profiles, despite many platforms requiring users to be at least 13.

"How are we going to enforce a ban with 14 and 15-year-olds who have grown up with it and built extensive networks?" she said.

Professor Sonia Livingstone, leader of the Digital Futures for Children centre at the London School of Economics, said ⁠policymakers risked reaching ​for the wrong solution, with a ban seen as "a very blunt hammer to crack a nut".

She said politicians should demand "safety by design… without eliminating ​children's access to the digital world, which is what they want and have a right to".

She said the government's focus should be on how it tackles big tech, suggesting they take a "divide and conquer" approach.

"Why don't we say: Snapchat is the one where the randomers can get in touch with you. ​Instagram is the one where you can see the self-harm content. And TikTok is the one that wants you on so long that you can never get to sleep or do your homework," she said.