Share
Tonight, MPs will vote on whether to ban social media for under 16s.
And while that debate takes place in Westminster, a version of the same argument will be playing out in homes across the country: about screen time, about sleep, about whether a child really needs TikTok or Snapchat “because everyone else has it”.
Parents know the risks. But acting alone comes with a cost.
Remove a phone or block social media, and you risk making your child the odd one out. Give in, and you worry about the consequences for their health.
It’s a classic collective action problem, and it cannot be solved by individual parents.
But it's not for want of trying. Amongst parents on Mumsnet, the concern is overwhelming. Around 61% say their child is addicted to their phone or social media, and nearly a quarter say none of the strategies they’ve tried to reduce screen time have worked.
It’s not that these parents are unwilling to act. It’s that they are being asked to combat systems designed to keep users hooked. They describe cancelling phone contracts or removing devices altogether – only to see the problem re-emerge through peer pressure or workarounds.
One mum described how she’d confiscated her child’s phone, only to find them creeping round the house in the small hours, desperately trying to find it.
The Online Safety Act was supposed to mark a turning point for children online. But its focus is largely on harmful or illegal content. For many parents, that misses the real issue.
The concern is not just what children might see. It is the nature of social media itself: platforms built around endless feeds, notifications and algorithms that maximise attention.
Almost all 12-year-olds now own a smartphone, and many spend hours each day on social media platforms.
Parents see the effects in their own homes: compulsive use, lost sleep, rising anxiety and collapsing self-esteem, while the companies responsible continue to profit.
And yet, even as support for a ban on social media for under 16s grows, the same tired objections surface.
Critics say teenagers will get around the rules. Perhaps a few will. But teenagers also get around age limits on cigarettes and alcohol. That doesn’t mean we abandon those protections altogether. The purpose of rules like these is not perfection; it is setting a social norm.
Others suggest that banning under-16s from major platforms would push them into darker, less regulated parts of the internet.
But let’s be clear there is zero evidence of this happening where a ban has already been enacted.
And, what’s more, it completely misunderstands how young people use social media. They are on Instagram, Snapchat or TikTok for one simple reason: that’s where everyone else is.
If access changes for everyone, that social pressure changes too.
Other countries have already taken action. Australia has legislated for a social media ban for under-16s, placing responsibility on platforms to prevent underage accounts. France and Spain have both recently announced bans.
Whether Britain ultimately follows that path still remains uncertain – despite overwhelming public support.
Monday’s vote is unlikely to settle the debate, and the ongoing government consultation will explore a number of options.
But one thing is already clear. You can’t out-parent a business model built on addiction.
For years, responsibility for managing children’s social media use has been pushed onto parents who are expected to control addictive platforms through household rules, parental controls and endless negotiations over screen time.
But parents cannot realistically be expected to compete against the most sophisticated behavioural engineering in history.
If MPs believe social media is harming children, the question is no longer whether parents should do more.
It is whether the government is finally prepared to step in and help them.
____________________
Justine Roberts is the founder of MumsNet
LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.
To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk
