Banning Under 16s: The illusion of safety
A popular fix that may not fix anything
Politicians love a simple solution. Few proposals feel as satisfyingly clear cut as banning under 16s from social media. It sounds bold. It sounds decisive. And it resonates with a public that is understandably anxious about the impact of online platforms on young people.
With 78% of UK adults supporting such a ban, it is easy to see why the idea is gaining traction.
But here is the uncomfortable truth. Bans make headlines, not safe children.
Despite what appears as broad public approval in some media coverage, our recent research shows that only a minority of UK adults believe a ban would actually work. The issue is not the principle. Protecting children is one of the few priorities nearly everyone agrees on. The issue is enforcement. When you dig beneath the surface, the proposal begins to look less like a solution and more like a false promise of safety in a world that is anything but simple.
A solution riddled with workarounds
The public is already clear eyed about what would happen next. Children will remain online, with or without the blessing of lawmakers.
Around 75% of adults think under 16s would lie about their age or use fake identification to bypass restrictions. A further 72% believe teenagers would find technological workarounds. More concerning still, 67% say a ban could push young people into even more dangerous online spaces, including the dark web, where protections are weakest and risks are highest.
The intent may be protection. The likely outcome is circumvention.
The problem of digital displacement
Outlawing one platform does not remove the behaviour. It simply moves it.
A clear majority, 63%, expect teenagers to migrate to encrypted or private messaging services. Meanwhile, 56% predict a return to SMS. These are not signs of a problem solved. They are signs of a problem displaced.
And the ripple effects would not stop there.
According to the public, 60% anticipate a rise in online gaming, an environment already characterised by largely unmoderated interaction between strangers. A further 59% expect greater use of streaming platforms as teenagers seek connection with the culture shaping their world. Even online shopping apps, cited by 27%, could evolve into new hubs of youth activity.
Where policymakers imagine a digital retreat, the public expects a digital rerouting.
This is the risk of digital displacement. Without systemic change, behaviour adapts faster than regulation.
Protection versus participation
The debate exposes a deeper tension. We want to protect children. Yet we also recognise that the internet is woven into the fabric of growing up.
An overwhelming 89% of adults say safety should come first. At the same time, two-thirds agree that children should not be shut out of the online world altogether. In addition, 72% believe social media is not uniformly harmful, acknowledging its potential for learning, creativity and connection.
Even perceptions of influence are split. Half of adults believe social media has too much influence over under 16s, while the other half see its impact as moderate or limited.
This is not simply a policy disagreement. It reflects wider adult uncertainty about how to manage childhood in a digital age that continues to evolve at pace.
It is not access. It is accountability.
There is, however, strong consensus on one point. The UK’s regulatory system is widely viewed as ineffective.
A striking 86% of adults want stronger enforcement and believe regulators are too weak in holding technology companies accountable for the safety of young people. If the public doubts bans but demands better oversight, the message is clear.
The problem is not access. It is accountability.
Concern centres on major platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram. These platforms are not perceived as risky purely because of content, but because of design. Algorithmic feeds, frictionless discovery and rapid interaction shape behaviour in powerful ways. TikTok in particular is viewed as the greatest risk, named by 72% of adults.
Excluding teenagers from these platforms does not address the systemic features that drive concern. Only robust, well enforced regulation can do that.
What this means for brands
This is not just a debate about social media. It is a window into how the public now thinks about responsibility in the digital age.
Across sectors, expectations are shifting. Whether you are in tech, retail, entertainment, financial services or FMCG, audiences increasingly judge brands not only by what they sell, but by the environments they help shape.
Three implications stand out.
First, safety and wellbeing are becoming trust multipliers. Brands associated with platforms, content or communities used by younger audiences will be expected to demonstrate active responsibility, not passive participation.
Second, behaviour is fluid. If regulation or public pressure reshapes digital spaces, audiences will migrate. Brands that rely too heavily on a single channel or platform risk losing visibility and relevance. Understanding ecosystem dynamics will matter more than ever.
Third, accountability is moving from regulators to reputations. Even in the absence of new legislation, public scrutiny is intensifying. Transparency, data practices and design choices will increasingly influence brand equity, not just compliance teams.
The key takeaway: In the rapidly evolving digital world, companies and brands need to ensure they have a clear purpose that drives their moral compass. Ethical design and intention may become a competitive differentiator of the future, not a compliance checkbox.
This is not simply about avoiding risk. It is about recognising where expectations are rising and ensuring your values and actions stay on the right side.
At The Harris Poll UK, we help organisations understand how shifting public expectations translate into commercial risk and opportunity. Our research goes beyond headline sentiment to uncover the tensions shaping trust, reputation and regulatory pressure across sectors, helping brands see around corners before those pressures crystallise.
If you would like to explore how these dynamics could influence your brand, category or stakeholder relationships, we would welcome a conversation.