In the first piece of a three-month series, local school students Megan Ledain, Jessica Ampong and Charlotte O’Donoghue explore the UK government’s proposed social media ban for under-16s

Jessica Ampong, Charlotte O’Donoghue and Megan Ledain (credit Kai Images)

Is the proposed social media ban for under-16s in the UK censoring us or is it another way for overprotective parents to coddle their children?

Born in the early 2010s, we’ve seen the rise of social media as an outlet for personal expression, political activism, news consumption and community building.

But, like most things, social media has downsides. Misinformation, negative impacts on teenage mental health and social media addiction all need addressing.

We feel that encouraging a social media ban for young people wouldn’t be positive for a number of reasons.

Social media is a way for people who struggle socially or don’t have a real-life community to develop connections. Banning it would isolate these people further and could damage their mental health. If someone was being bullied at school and felt isolated, they could turn to social media to find comfort in the communities they are part of.

Additionally, the ban wouldn’t be positive because of the rise of social media jobs. Being an ‘influencer’ is now a real career option, offering opportunities for personal and professional development. Taking social media away prevents under-16s from gaining this experience and building transferable skills learned online.

Since 2020, social media usage among teens has risen. But what parents and the government don’t understand is that social media is more than memes and skits. It’s where like-minded teens express themselves through online forums.

In recent years, apps such as TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat have adapted their policies to ensure online safety. In September 2025, Instagram automatically gave under-18s ‘private status’, including protections such as sleep mode, limited sensitive content and mandatory parental permission.

This allows teens to access the app whilst maintaining privacy and parental supervision.

According to the BBC, one-in-three teenagers aged 15–18 have met a friend online. Friends-behind-screens can provide non-biased emotional support, making it easier to share struggles. Social media achieves something reality doesn’t: the ability to find our niche and meet others who share similar interests. Online, it doesn’t matter where you’re from or who you are.

A close friend of ours has built an online community by posting her own edits, forming connections globally. If a ban was imposed, she would miss out on development skills and an escape from everyday life. Online friendships can be as valuable as offline ones, relying on emotional connection over physical proximity.

We understand that by proposing a national phone ban, the government is trying to protect us. However, it could harm our education more than they realise. Many students rely on social media for study resources such as Medly and Cognito. Banning it could remove these beneficial tools and the positive influencers who give study advice.

As year ten students, we learn a lot from social media. For example, ‘The Light Up Hub’ gives helpful tips for English literature and language. This account and others have supported us and many students, but here’s the kicker: the only way to access them is through social media.

The government must realise that young people live in a digital age. Of course, the internet has flaws. The rise of AI makes it easier to spread fake news and manipulate ideas, which can damage young minds. But the problem isn’t social media itself. It’s the lack of media and digital literacy.

Phone use should be monitored in spaces where it can be misused, such as schools, but don’t ban the tools we use to connect. Create rules that allow us to make responsible choices as we grow into adults.

The government should invest more in training and support for media literacy so young people can use social media safely. Social media isn’t the root cause of misinformation – a lack of media literacy is. Don’t punish us because the world is getting smarter.

St Anne’s Catholic High School for Girls is the pilot for a bespoke digital safety programme, ‘Building Futures: Safer, Smarter Families’, developed and delivered by Exodus Youth Worx UK and Curate Your Genius and partly funded by LocalMotion Enfield.

Please get in touch if you are interested in running the programme at other schools or spaces.

This article is published with support from LocalMotion Enfield, part of a UK-wide movement for community-led change

LocalMotion Enfield is part of a UK-wide movement for community-led change – we're proud to partner with Enfield Dispatch to share local voices and stories

No news is bad news

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.