Social media ban: civil society responses

We have compiled a selection of published responses and reactions from civil society organisations (within the OSA Network and beyond) to the Government's announcement of a social media ban for under-16s and other measures, following their consultation on children's online safety - "Growing up in the Online World". For a selection of the evidence submitted to the consultation by many of these organisations, please see our compilation page here.

Our initial response can be found here.

• 5 Rights Foundation - "age restrictions alone cannot solve the underlying problem".
• Ada Lovelace Institute - "a social media ban for young people – even if successful – only addresses part of the problem".
• Amnesty - "banning under-16s risks treating children as the problem rather than addressing the companies and systems that create the risks in the first place".
• Anti-Bullying Alliance - "we have serious concerns about whether a blanket social media ban for under 16s will effectively address these harms".
• Barnardos - "this is not a silver bullet, and must be seen as one of a package of measures".
• Beat - "a ban must not become a substitute for removing harmful content".
• Center for Countering Digital Hate - “Bans are no silver bullet and without strong enforcement, these protections risk becoming empty promises."
• Breck Foundation - "this approach risks narrowing a complex conversation. We remain concerned about unintended consequences."
• Centre for Countering Online Disinformation - "a blanket ban on social media use will fail to yield well-intended results"
• Centre for Protecting Women Online - "the concerns raised about a blanket ban are very real, and are affecting young people, as well as women, particularly those most marginalised".
• Childnet - "whilst we acknowledge the need for change, we do not think that a ‘blanket ban’ approach, as outlined by the Government, is the answer needed."
• Child Rights International Network - "children should have safe social media, not exclusion".
• Child Online Harms Policy Think Tank - "we support online child protection but believe that blanket restrictions may create unintended consequences".
• Children's Commissioner for England - "a positive response to what children have been telling me. However, these measures will only be as strong as their enforcement".
• Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland - "enforcing a ban on children takes away the responsibility on platforms to make social media safer."
• The Children's Society - "by fixating on a ban as a desirable outcome, rather than a more practical approach, the debate has ignored realities for young people, including learning from other countries"
• Common Sense Media - "we look forward to keeping this momentum going and building a safer digital future for children in the U.K., the U.S., and across the globe".
• Flippgen - "a ban will increase the gap between young people’s realities of growing up online, and parents and regulatory decision makers."
• Girlguiding - "It is vital that this moment drives further action to address the root causes of online harms."
• Internet Matters - "a critical step, but the real test will be whether these measures deliver meaningful change for children and families".
• Mad Youth Organise - "we need action that actually holds corporations accountable, instead of excluding young people from the digital world"
• Marie Collins Foundation - "while restricting access may reduce some harms, it does not address the core of the problem"
• Mental Health Foundation - "we must be clear that an under-16 ban alone is not a fix: it cannot be the only action taken"
• National Children's Bureau - "we are concerned that the proposals as stated do not do enough to keep all children and young people safe".
• NSPCC - "the government must continue to put pressure on Big Tech and not let them off the hook".
• Parentzone - "what is already self-evident is that bans will not replace parenting and education".
• Plan International UK - "banning children does nothing to tackle the dangerous misogyny and sexism that has become so rampant across social media."
• Save the Children - "if ministers want to make the online world safer, the answer is not simply keeping children off platforms."
• UK Youth - "protecting young people online means investing in them offline".
• White Ribbon - "plans to restrict children’s access to social media may form part of the response, but they should not be seen as the only way to tackle online harm".

Plus, the Science Media Centre has provided a round-up of scientists' response to the ban.