According to reporting by ITV and Sky News, Alan Milburn said that “the evidence points in one direction” on a social media ban for under-16s. ITV reported it saying he was backing Lord Grade, the former Chair of Ofcom, who said yesterday that his experience across the media industry has convinced him social media should be banned for under-16s. Grade argued that, despite the Online Safety Act, too much harmful content remains online.
Michael Grade says he believes there is ‘nothing to lose’ from introducing a time-limited social media ban. For himself perhaps that is true, but it’s not the case for children or others using social media, worried about losing access to friends, information, or any any features and functionality under threat for all children up to 18. Or the age gating impact of a “children’s” ban for every adult too.
If one looks only at one side, of course the evidence points in one direction. But the evidence on a social media ban (“SMB” or the Australia Social Media Minimum Age restrictions “SMMA”) is not one-sided, nor about only one thing, and the full picture deserves reporting.
All of the responses I’ve seen and read so far, are here. At the risk of falling into the Milburn trap, I mention only a one-sided selection of the publicly available submissions I have found so far, to demonstrate that the evidence is not all pointing in one direction. A wide range of children’s rights bodies, safeguarding experts, educators, and online safety organisations have reached the opposite conclusion.
Scotland’s Children’s Commissioner’s Office carried out a children’s rights impact assessment and concluded against a ban for under-16s.
CRIN asks, what are we even talking about banning?
The Online Safety Network points out that a “ban” is often undefined and can mean a variety of approaches but offers no silver bullet to the issues.
The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) is concerned that the discourse has become reductive and overly simplified around the binary choice of banning social media for under-16s. It warns that a ban could limit access to positive online support for vulnerable children.
The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) cautions against the misapprehension that a blanket ban for under-16s will “solve the problem,” and warns that such a ban introduces harm through a “cliff edge” effect, as does the coalition at the Back Youth Alliance. ASCL is among those who note that in Australia, the ban is not protecting young people as intended.
UNICEF has welcomed the growing commitment to children’s online safety but cautioned that social media bans carry their own risks, “and may even backfire”.
The Molly Rose Foundation argues that blanket bans would fail to deliver the improvement in children’s safety and wellbeing that is so urgently needed, calling it a blunt response that fails to address the successive shortcomings of tech companies. The Foundation also conducted polling on whether Australia’s social media ban is working (2026). It found that most children do not feel the ban has improved how safe they feel online, and that 1 in 8 felt less safe.
Public First polling found in the UK that while nearly two-thirds asked support a blanket ban on under-16s using social media, 68% say it would not work, and 50% of parents would still allow access to social media even if a ban were in place. [Collection date: 19 – 22 Jan 2026 | Sample size n=2,045].
Girlguiding’s March 2026 research found that just over half (56%) of those asked think a ban would be ineffective, as under-16s would still find a way onto social platforms. Only 15% said they thought a ban would make them feel safer online.
The multi-organisational Gamer’s Voice issued a joint statement opposing the placing of internet services, including games, behind an age-gate. Their position is that UK policymakers must prioritise addressing the roots of online harm rather than undermining the open web.
The Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR, Cambridge) argues that age restrictions and technical solutions alone will not resolve, and may worsen, the central problems they are meant to tackle.
Internet Matters does not support a blanket legal ban on children’s access to social media. It warns that a blanket ban could cut children off from spaces they use for learning, creativity, connection and support, while missing similar risks on other services.
My own research at Defend Digital Me finds that the age-gating technology adopted across a wide range of companies to meet Australia’s social media ban obligations has lifelong implications for children’s privacy, biometric and data protection rights, meaning children have no control over their data for life. Implications the UK government appears to have not yet considered or risk assessed. And not only for children but for everyone, obliged to use age verification technology to prove that they are not a child.
Jim Gamble, QPM, CEO of the INEQE Safeguarding Group (which incorporates Safer Schools), advocates for sensible restrictions rather than outright bans.
The Open Rights Group encourages the Government not just to ban and restrict children, but to build better online spaces for young people, and predicts that bans and age-gating measures will ultimately prove ineffective.
At the end of the day, the weight of considered expert evidence right now from those working directly on children’s safety, education, and digital rights does not support a blanket ban. It points instead toward addressing the underlying causes of online harm, building better online spaces, and holding tech companies to account.
Claiming the evidence points in one direction only works if you decline to look at the rest.
