Starmer's delicate balancing actpublished at 11:58 BST

11:58 BST

Zoe Kleinman
Technology editor

On the one hand the prime minister must be tough on the tech giants and force them to comply with a ban on their own products.

On the other, he continues to promote the UK as a great place for the tech and AI industry to grow and thrive - and spend money.

The same US tech companies under the shadow of the ban have invested millions of dollars in their UK operations. Is there a tipping point at which they decide to cut back on their British commitments?

And there’s another challenge ahead, in the form of US president Donald Trump, who is fiercely protective of those same firms - Keir Starmer admitted that he has not yet discussed the announcement with his fiery counterpart and will do so at the G7, his next destination.

Image source, EPA

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy says keeping children safe online "must go hand in hand with giving them more opportunities offline".

Writing on X, she says the government is "investing in sport, music, culture and the arts" to give young people "the confidence and connections to thrive".

It follows similar comments from PM Keir Starmer earlier, who said the social media ban "isn't just about taking something away".

Children in the UK aged eight to 14 are online for an average of nearly three hours each day, at least two hours of which are spent using types of social media, survey data suggests.

Media regulator Ofcom has been drilling down on the figures, external and has found that YouTube accounts for the largest share of time spent online by young people in the eight to 14 age group, at 23%.

Snapchat is responsible for 18% of time online, with WhatsApp on 9%, TikTok accounting for 7%, Roblox also for 7% and other platforms accounting for 36%.

The use of these services varies according to age, Ofcom found. It says it is ready to work with the government to help “"build on this progress with new measures to protect children".

In its survey, Ofcom found that the youngest age group, eight to nine-year-olds, are likely to spend an average of 53 minutes each day using YouTube (45% of time online) and 10 to 12-year-olds spend 55 minutes (31%), but among 13 to 14-year-olds the average drops to 31 minutes (13%).

The opposite pattern is true for Snapchat, which accounts for six minutes of time online spent by eight to nine-year-olds (5% of the total), rising to 36 minutes for 10 to 12-year-olds (20%) and one hour and 37 minutes for 13 to 14-year-olds (40%).

And use of TikTok increases gradually, from an average of six minutes a day among eight to nine-year-olds (5% of time online) to 17 minutes for 10 to 12-year-olds (9%) and 21 minutes for 13 to 14-year-olds (9%).

Nathan Standley
Education reporter

Support for the ban is coming in from the biggest teaching unions across the country. The general secretary for the Association of School and College Leaders, Pepe Di'Iasio says teachers "routinely see the harm caused" by social media platforms.

He says Monday mornings are a time when teachers are "managing the aftermath of whatever has happened at the weekend".

The National Education Union says teachers see "every day how social media is harming children - disrupting their learning, isolating them and exposing them to content they are simply not ready for".

Similarly, the NASUWT says pupils' "wellbeing, behaviour and ability to learn" are all impacted by some of the more harmful aspects of social media.

The National Association of Head Teachers says "a much wider package of measures" will be needed to properly address the risks posed by social media and the wider online world.

They've welcomed the government's commitment to take action on gaming and streaming platforms too, saying a focus on social media alone "would risk letting [tech companies] off the hook".

Image source, Getty Images

The under-16 ban announced this morning could kick in as early as next spring - we've taken a closer look at the implications for social media users between now and then.

What do I need to do now?

Nothing. The government says it will provide further details to families and children ahead of the changes in 2027.

Will adults need to verify age?

Most won't, according to the government, because:

• Their account has already been open 16 years
• They have a credit card connected to it
• It's linked to an email that's age-verified in other ways
• Or they've already done verification checks under the existing Online Safety Act

How will age verification work?

For those that do need to verify their age, it could be as simple as a facial recognition check. Ofcom will set out different options that are "accurate, robust, reliable, and fair" in the coming months, the government says.

A spokesperson for Facebook and Instagram-owner Meta says they don't think a ban will achieve the goal of keeping teens safe online.

"As we've seen in Australia, bans risk isolating teens from online communities and information, and driving them to unregulated alternatives that lack built-in protections and parental controls," the spokesperson says.

They add that restrictions should be "underpinned by an age verification system on devices" so that people aren't asked to "hand over ID to dozens of individual services".

The company says it "share[s] the goal of keeping teens safe online", adding that its teen accounts automatically limit who can contact children and the content they see.

Three months after the social media ban came into effect, the BBC visited a school in Sydney to see how it was going.

A hint: not quite as expected.

Hit play below to hear what students had to say.

Tiffanie Turnbull
BBC News

Keir Starmer has made no secret of the fact his social media ban policy has been inspired by Australia's, which started in December.

And Australia has been loudly advocating for other countries to follow in its footsteps.

Having a bigger ally like the UK at its side strengthens Australia's position - and prime minister Anthony Albanese said as much when congratulating Keir Starmer on his announcement.

"Social media giants operate across borders. By standing together, we can do more to hold them accountable and keep children safe online," he said on X.

It may give Australia an extra degree of protection should the White House take issue with the ban's impact on the powerful US social media firms which oppose it.

But Canberra will also be undoubtedly thrilled at the UK's announcement as it gives their policy an aura of success - when in reality the effectiveness of it is still unclear and the roll out has so far been chequered at best.

Safety in numbers, as they say.

England’s children’s commissioner has said a social media ban should be extended to all children – including those up to the age of 18 rather than stopping at 16.

Dame Rachel de Souza said while the ban is “positive”, the debate must be reset “from banning children to banning the companies who fail to show that their services protect children’s safety and wellbeing”.

She said today’s announcement was "positive" but the measures are only as strong as their enforcement, which she added she would be "watching closely."

She said that any online service using harmful features - including gaming and other platforms - should be banned from being accessed by under-18s unless they can prove it's safe.

“This is a decision that will define childhood – we must listen to young people and put their interests first. Children tell me that digital spaces are where they learn, connect and find community.

“But they want an end to the harms: addictive design that keeps them scrolling, the explicit content they wish they’d never seen, and the strangers who should never be able to contact them.”

Callers to Nicky Campbell's BBC Radio 5 Live have been reacting to the ban announcement.

Max in Glasgow, 17, says the ban is "harmful" as he is in a band and says it will cause a decline in young bands being visible on social media and able to share music. He also says it removes another career path: "I was thinking about people being an influencer, the perks of that is that you can start at any age but now there will be less of that."

Chris in Glasgow, father of two says he's "thankful" to hear the ban announced and feels like young people have been let down by the adults who haven't protected them. "This is a start for the government and there will be problems but it's about the change in culture."

Stuart in Atherstone says, "I don't agree social media is the best thing on Earth, but equally as a parent I feel that I can make that decision myself. I don't need Keir Starmer to tell me... That's my choice, I'm not in North Korea."

Manuel in London says: "This is such brilliant news this morning. It's not our children's fault and it's our responsibility to take care of this. When I speak to children in assemblies I do emphasise that they shouldn't be on social media for hours and hours scrolling through it. But we are the grownups and we have to make the decisions."

Chinju in London, dad of two young girls, used to live in the US, and thinks the rest of the world should also introduce a ban. "I think the data here is infallible and I think these platforms are programmed by the best computer scientists in the world to keep them addicted and keep them coming back to the app. Engagement is the name of the game, that's what drives their profit books, safety is not."

We've been receiving your questions throughout this morning following the government's announcement of a social media ban for under 16s.

How are teenagers meant to keep up with friends? It's not commonplace to have someone's number, we rely on social media to talk to our friends, asks Honey.

Another person, who didn't want to share their name, asks: Will parents be fined if they do not do effective monitoring?

Have a question? You can get in touch in the following ways:

• WhatsApp: +44 7756 165803, external
• Upload your pictures and video
• Email: yourvoice@bbc.co.uk, external

Please read ourterms & conditions andprivacy policy.

In some cases a selection of your comments and questions will be published, displaying your name and location as you provide it unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published.

Liv McMahon
Technology reporter

The government says "highly effective age assurance" will be used to enforce its social media ban – something that firms typically use to accurately estimate or verify someone’s age, such as by using face scans or asking for ID.

The regulator Ofcom will carry out a rapid study to identify the best ways to verify if someone is over 16, it adds.

Some platforms, including porn sites, must already carry out similar checks to stop children accessing adult material in the UK.

But such requirements have been criticised by civil and digital rights campaigners, who warn making people hand over ID or biometric data can put their privacy or security at risk.

Concerns have also previously been raised about tools such as virtual private networks (VPNs) being used to circumvent UK blocks, and these will no doubt emerge again here.

The prime minister seems well aware, though, that some teens will try to get around social media blocks.

"We don’t say ‘oh look a teenager managed to get a drink somehow so let’s not bother banning alcohol sales to children'", he said earlier.

"Laws are rules. But they’re also an expression of our values," he added.

Graham Fraser
Technology reporter

The children’s commissioner for Scotland has joined their equivalent in Wales by stating the social media ban for under 16s is not the answer.

Nicola Killean said she was "disappointed" by the prime minister’s speech, which "spoke to adults only, not to the children and young people who will be most affected by these decisions".

Killean added the ban was not a "proportionate, effective, or enforceable way to protect children’s rights".

"The available evidence does not currently show a blanket ban would make children safer online, and it may inadvertently push children to less regulated or riskier parts of the internet."

Do nine in 10 parents support a ban on social media for under-16s?published at 10:44 BST

10:44 BST

By Daniel Wainwright

The government says “nine, external in 10 parents, external” support a social media ban for children under 16, citing responses to a consultation.

But the figure does not mean 90% of all UK parents.

It comes from the 9,499 parents and carers who chose to answer a government consultation question asking whether they supported a legal minimum age for social media access.

Of those, 89% said yes.

In a follow-up question to those who supported a minimum age, 88% strongly agreed it should be at least 16 while 8% somewhat agreed.

The government’s own notes say the consultation, external was a “self-selecting sample” meaning it was open to anyone and reflects people motivated to respond rather than a representative national picture.

Separate YouGov polling suggests broad support - but lower than the government’s headline figure: 77% of parents backed a ban.

Parents were also split on whether it would work with 45% of those surveyed by YouGov saying it would be effective and 46% disagreeing.

Emmet McElhatten
BBC News Northern Ireland

Image source, INEQE

Jim Gamble, founding chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, says he does "not know any social media expert" who thinks "a blanket ban" is going to work.

Gamble says the ban is "much more complex and nuanced than the prime minister is making out".

Gamble tells BBC Radio Ulster Good Morning Ulster there are "easy workarounds" for young people set on staying on social media.

"Many (Australians) bypassed restrictions using virtual private networks. They circumvented them by submitting fake IDs or altering their appearance to trick AI (artificial intelligence) age estimation," he adds.

Gamble said the ban in Australia has driven young people to "darker corners" of the internet.

"If you actually look at the statistics, it's a double-edged sword because the internet does as much good.

"For isolated, alienated children, for children with neurodiversity, with children exploring different aspects of their young lives, it's a space and place where they can build positive networks."

Tom Richardson
Newsbeat

Keir Starmer says the new social media ban will extend to gaming platforms, but it's not entirely clear what it will mean for players.

Some online games, especially Roblox, have gained bad press over cases where predators have targeted children.

But for millions of young people multiplayer games can function as a social hangout space, and many will tell you they mainly communicate with people they already know.

The biggest games companies already offer parents control over the use of messaging functions, giving them the ability to place limits on who can contact their child - although the effectiveness of these measures has been questioned.

The government's new rules also mention livestreaming.

This could, in theory, affect platforms such as Twitch, which was included in Australia's social media ban last year.

Currently under-18s are able to broadcast on the Amazon-owned site with permission of a parent or guardian, and for a lucky few it can be a way to make money and launch a career.

There's also a question of enforcement. Players often prefer to use third-party apps such as Discord over built-in messaging apps - and there's a question over whether these will be exempt from the new rules.

Will this tech-savvy audience find ways around the new ban before it's even been launched?

Nina Blissett
Newsround reporter

It’s a mixed reaction here at a high school in Wythenshawe.

I was with Year 8 and 9 pupils as they watched the announcement from Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Some were happy with a social media ban coming into force, others had their heads in their hands.

Sean, 13, doesn’t have social media and is feeling good about the ban.

"It’s time they did something about it. Many use [social media] for bad and good things, but at this point in time it’s a bad place."

Riley, 13, uses mostly YouTube and WhatsApp and isn’t very happy. He feels that the government hasn’t looked at the bigger picture of people who would struggle with the ban.

As a reminder, WhatsApp is not included in the ban.

"There is a lot of people with neurodivergence," says Riley. "We need it to recuperate when we are burned out."

Isaac, also 13,says that he's "annoyed and disappointed in this decision, because they’re not trying to make it better or safer - instead they are gonna wipe it out completely."

"I think there should be more restriction and parental guidance on the accounts, but not a ban."

Image source, Getty Images

A Snapchat spokesperson says a ban on its platform could push young people onto "less safe platforms".

The popular social media and messaging app would be banned for under-16s under Starmer's plans.

But it says that the majority of time spent on Snapchat is in "private messaging between friends and family".

"An outright ban that disconnects teens from those relationships doesn't make them safer - it may simply push them to less safe platforms," a spokesperson says.

It adds that it has long supported "thoughtful and proportionate regulation" and shares the government's aim to protect young people from online harm - and that it is "vital" that the government now "carefully considers" how a ban would be applied.

Messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal would not be included in the social media ban.

The Liberal Democrats have criticised the government’s plans for a social media ban, complaining that, “after months of delay, the government have cobbled together a hodgepodge of social media restrictions which don't keep children safe, nor hold big tech's feet to the fire.”

The party says it wants the UK to challenge big tech companies with what it calls a “credible set of measures that genuinely protects our children, rather than rushing through a half-baked policy just to secure a political legacy.”

In a statement, the Lib Dems say they support the many families “crying out for action against harmful content and addictive algorithms, adding: “We will keep fighting their corner”.

For context, the party earlier this year proposed introducing film-style age ratings to limit which social media apps children can access.

Under its plan, platforms that use addictive algorithmic feeds or host "inappropriate content" would be restricted to users over 16 years old, while sites with "graphic violence or pornography" would be rated 18-plus.

Ban is big shift in government policypublished at 10:14 BST

10:14 BST

Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent

This is a massive shift in policy for British society, enabled by a staggeringly quick shift in the government’s position.

It is only at the start of this year that the Conservatives were pushing for an Australian-style ban, joined by the Liberal Democrats and several dozen Labour MPs, but initially met resistance from Keir Starmer.

So there is a measure of cynicism around today about this decision. But it’s been clear for some time that politicians’ minds have shifted rapidly on this, just as has been true in much of society.

Those who know his mind say the prime minister has been moved by the meetings he’s had with those who have been affected by these issues.