UK social media ban draws mixed reaction from creator economy operators

The UK government's ban on social media for under-16s has drawn mixed reactions from those operating in the creator economy, as industry figures, campaigners and platforms debate how best to protect young people online.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced yesterday that children under 16 will no longer have access to social media platforms as part of a wider effort to address concerns about the impact of social media on young people's wellbeing.

The ban will cover platforms including TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat and X, with separate restrictions on livestreaming and unsolicited contact with children applying to a wider range of online services including gaming sites. Those restrictions will also be switched on by default for 16 and 17-year-olds.

The government said it expects legislation to come before Parliament before Christmas, with protections expected to come into force in Spring 2027. The move follows a similar measure first introduced in Australia but goes further.

"This is a line in the sand," Starmer said. "Tech giants had their chance and failed, but we're stepping in to protect children, back parents and set a new normal for future generations."

Access is only one part of the puzzle

For some in the creator industry, the announcement raises as many questions as it answers.

Murphy Hopkins-Hubbard, founder of creator standards platform Stamp, told The Daily Influence that while the ban is a step in the right direction, it ultimately addresses the wrong problem.

"The ban doesn't ask why a 13-year-old develops a distorted relationship with her body after two years of following certain creators, or what it does to a child's sense of reality when the adults they trust online are performing authenticity rather than living it," she said. 

"The real harm is content that was never designed with young people's development in mind, made by people nobody has ever asked to think about that or be accountable for it."

Scott Guthrie, Director General of the Influencer Marketing Trade Body, said the announcement raised an important question about the impact on young people who rely on creator content for education and skill-building.

"Absolutely, young people should be safe online," he told The Daily Influence. "We also need to safeguard their access to relatable educational resources."

The IMTB is co-secretariat to the Digital Creators All-Party Parliamentary Group, which earlier this month urged the government to distinguish between educational creator content and social networking services when designing future regulation. 

The APPG heard from creators whose content helps young people study for GCSEs and learn new skills. The group argued that creator-led video platforms serve a different purpose from social media and should not be treated the same way.

The sharpest criticism came from Andy Burrows, Chief Executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, the charity set up in memory of Molly Russell, who died after viewing self-harm content online.

"The Prime Minister has chosen to gamble on an unenforceable social media ban that will quickly unravel," he said in a statement. 

"A social media ban will fail to tackle fundamental product safety risks and leaves parents with a false sense of safety. A majority of children will continue to use high risk sites that will have no incentive to implement robust protections."

Burrows said the ban was not what online safety experts believed would work and warned that Starmer risked "setting back children's safety by years."

"Long overdue"

Even so, for others the ban reflects a necessary response to a social media landscape that has changed significantly over the past decade, and where the risks to young people have become more acute.

Jake Lee, founder and chief executive of Alpha Talent Group and manager to Tommy Fury, said he backed the principle of the ban despite building his business on social media.

"Social media in 2026 isn't the same as social media was 10 years ago," he wrote on LinkedIn. "My concern isn't just the amount of time young people spend on it. It's the fact they're being exposed to content that was never designed for them in the first place."

Lee said he also worried about what young people miss when so much of their time is spent online. "Friendships, conversations and hobbies - the things that help shape who you become."

Melo Meacher-Jones, Head of Social and Influence at Iris Worldwide, similarly welcomed the move on LinkedIn, calling it long overdue.

"The problem has always been the way platforms are architected and incentivised, with engagement optimised above everything else, including the wellbeing of their youngest users," they said. "This ban isn't the perfect solution, but it's a first step to create the conditions for something better."

"Blanket bans push kids towards less safe services"

The platforms were also critical of the plans, arguing that restricting access would drive young people towards less regulated alternatives rather than keeping them safer.

YouTube said blanket bans "push kids out of curated, supervised, beneficial experiences and towards anonymous, less safe services." Meta warned that bans risk "isolating teens from online communities and information, and driving them to unregulated alternatives that lack built-in protections and parental controls." Snapchat said an outright ban "may simply push them to less safe platforms", noting that most time on the platform is spent in private messaging between friends and family.

The argument is not without basis. The UK's move is the latest in a string of similar measures introduced by governments in recent years, with a number of countries having introduced or announced age restrictions on social media access.

Data from parental control software maker Qustodio, published in March, suggested Australian teenagers were still accessing restricted platforms through VPNs and fake accounts months after that country's ban came into force. Experts have questioned whether access restrictions address the design of platforms built to maximise engagement - or simply move the problem elsewhere.