Brainrot; Should we ban mobile phones for under-16s?
There can’t be many topics surrounding children as hot as banning social media for under-16s.
The vast majority of the British public is pro-ban; some polling has support at around 75% of the population.
I am not so convinced.
For one, any ban will be bypassed in no time. Whilst some amongst us are not as technologically capable, evidence from the ban in Australia shows the failures of AI age verification, as well as how many platforms are incapable of accurately enforcing age limits.
One immediate problem obvious to me is: how do you even determine if it is a child using a social media account?
The typical way would be user-inputted age; however, without accurate checks, there is no way of proving this. A friend of mine who registered a Facebook account in 2014 officially turned 120 years old last year according to the site – now, personally, I think he looks barely a day over 110, but he registered the account at 14. How is Facebook to know his real age?
In Australia, social media platforms are essentially using gathered data to infer the age of users. This then prompts them to verify using either ID or a video, for one this is likely to miss many users and the AI systems are easily foolable. Beyond that, kids will just download a VPN and bypass any restrictions; this is not complex, it simply requires a Google search.
For many kids, social media is their place for community. If they lack a social support network in person or belong to more marginalised communities, social media is a way for them to build a social network. I, for one, built connections with people who lived in different countries and connected to communities surrounding nerdy hobbies – Substack is a prime example of this.
From the other angle, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that social media is bad for kids.
87% of teens say they have been cyberbullied on social media.
Social media use is linked to a 70% increase in self-reported depression symptoms among teens.
41% of Gen Z users say social media makes them feel anxious, sad, or depressed.
Spending too much time on social media raises the risk of developing eating disorders by 2.2 times.
50% of people aged 14–24 say Instagram makes them more anxious.
Yet I still remain unconvinced by the merits of the ban.
Teachers complain about the role social media has played in students’ attention and attainment. Regarding attention, the clear answer is to ban phones in school; that is fairly obvious.
But on attainment, I think it is a different question. There are continual anecdotal reports by teachers about children being unable to read, focus, or perform simple maths, and how, as a result, they are doomed.
One could sum it up with a quote describing the attitudes of the youth: “They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. They no longer rise when elders enter the room, they contradict their parents and tyrannise their teachers. Children are now tyrants.”
But of course, that is a quote attributed to Socrates in 470 BC.
Every generation since time immemorial has held the view that the generation after them is doomed. So, I would back away from such inflammatory language, but there clearly are still issues.
In an annual survey of primary school teachers in England, they estimated that 26% of children in their reception class were having frequent toilet mishaps. The survey also found that 28% of children were unable to eat and drink independently and 25% were struggling with other basic life skills.
There certainly is something going on with the younger generation; however, I think this hinges almost entirely on parents who have seemingly abdicated the responsibility of raising their children in favour of a “nursery by iPad.”
It again raises the question of how much you can really expect your government and your politicians to do for you. They can’t raise your children, and they won’t be able to enforce a social media ban. The responsibility for this lies, as ever, with the parents.
My final issue with the social media ban is likely to be more incendiary. The policy reeks of intergenerational unfairness.
The same statistics cited above also included the following:
58% of American adults who use social media feel it harms their mental health
Approximately 10% to 30% of adults aged 18–25 report signs of social media addiction
In 2024–2025 surveys, roughly 18.5% of women reported struggling with poor mental health related to digital use.
If the argument can be made that it is so negative to every user, why is the conversation only around under-16s?
Why is the cut-off 16 and not 18? The argument is made that development under 16 is important, but it could be argued that there is necessary development until the mid-20s. Why isn’t the conversation actually about banning social media platforms as a whole?
The counter to that, of course, is that the individual is capable of controlling their usage.
Therefore, why isn’t it the parents’ prerogative whether their teen is on the platform? Instead, there is a desire for “daddy government” to handle all the difficult parts for parents.
The whole policy reeks to me of a society that is keen to let parents abdicate their responsibility and further cede everything in their lives to the government.