Katy Watson
Australia correspondent

I’m often asked whether the social media ban here is working but it’s an impossible question to answer perfectly.

If you were to ask Australia’s teens, then it would be a resounding no - most anecdotally seem to still be on it.

If you were to ask tech experts, I’d say most would agree with the teens’ viewpoint, arguing improving digital literacy is a better path than stopping kids from going online.

Parents may be more split - while some think they should be the ones deciding about their children’s online activity, others think at least the ban has started a conversation around how to keep young people safe.

But the big question is - how do we define the legislation's success? Is it mental health outcomes? Is it less time spent scrolling? Or the number of accounts shut down?

With only six months since the legislation came into force, we don’t have any of that data - the real picture of what this ban has achieved - or not - will take several years to understand.

We've been receiving your questions about the announcement of a social media ban for under-16s. Here are a selection:

Liam, 38, Manchester, says he's kept both his children off social media for their entire lives. He says "it hasn't been easy" and had to withstand significant social pressure. He says: "The ban changes that landscape and I think it is the right call. The thing the coverage is missing is what children do instead?"

Marcel, 48, in Cambridgeshire says he has no issue with a social media ban for children, but feels it contradicts another major change. "Isn't the government going to make 16-year-olds eligible to vote? If so, then where are they supposed to discuss their political beliefs or listen to other opinions/debates etc? If a social media ban is enforced, then the voting age has to stay at 18."

Hilary says tech companies could "push a simple phone" that would just allow you to message or call. "Why do children have smart phones at all? They say they need phones to get in touch with friends and family. A simple phone is all they need in that case!"

Chris says he is glad about the ban, but says adults should also be considered. "Has anyone collated the damage done to vulnerable adults? How many suicides in total are due to these platforms? We need control over what's being put out by these money hungry platforms."

Karen in Arbroath, says: "Is nobody investigating why PARENTS can't properly supervise their kids?"

Daniel, 36, in Newcastle says "I have younger children and YouTube Kids is something we use a lot for educational purposes - there is some good content on there. How will the ban affect the access to that useful platform?"

Sam, 17, in Eastbourne says the ban seems "rushed" and "ineffective". "The online safety act was not effective at stopping children seeing harmful content, how will this new law be any better?"

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

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

Popular social media platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X will be included in the proposed social media ban. It covers platforms that allow users to post material and interact with algorithms, meaning messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal would not be covered.

A spokesperson from YouTube says it is a "vital resource" for young people, and that a blanket ban would push children away from these "curated, supervised, beneficial experiences" towards less safe services.

That's echoed by Snapchat, a messaging service that allows users to post disappearing photos in the form of 'stories' online. It says the majority of time spent on Snapchat is for "private messaging" between friends and family - and an outright ban doesn't necessarily make teens safer.

Meta, which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, says a ban risks driving young people “to unregulated alternatives that lack built-in protections and parental controls”.

It says any restrictions must be underpinned by an age verification system on devices “so people aren't asked to hand over ID to dozens of individual services to prove their age”.

Tiffanie Turnbull
BBC News

Image source, Supplied

Miley Williams has really conflicting feelings about the social media ban.

"I'm a bit 50/50," she tells the BBC.

For her, social media isn't just a hobby, it's a job.

The fashion-obsessed 15-year-old built a platform off a viral video three years ago, and now earns a modest income of about £400 a month.

Her social media career has built her confidence, helped her connect with others, and left her with a sense of purpose and ambition, she adds.

She's now worried this policy will leave her out of work and undermine her future in the influencing industry. Most of her followers are under-16.

On the other hand, Williams says she understands some of the reasoning behind the government's proposal.

Her account is heavily monitored by her parents who shield her from the worst of the online world, but she knows strangers send her inappropriate messages. Sometimes, fans even follow her around in real life.

Doom-scrolling and some of the pressures around posting also often take the fun out of social media for her.

"It can get a little bit too much at times."

Williams agrees with a ban, but thinks the age limit is a few years too high, arguing she's an example of how allowing teens to use social media in moderation can be a good thing.

"It's changed my life," she says.

"[But] I have a lot more better things to do than just social media. I have family and friends and school and cheer[leading] and boxing."

Campaign group Big Brother Watch has raised privacy concerns about the ban, saying any age verification on platforms will "incur an enormous privacy intrusion".

Director Silkie Carlo tells BBC News that checks will mean "anonymity is dead for the whole of the British public" - and that checks that require bank details, face scans, or identification are "really intrusive methods".

"Effectively social media sites will become digital ID checkpoints," Carlo claims.

She also claims it is "risky" to teach children to send photos of themselves for age verification checks when companies ask them to, and that rather the focus should be on teaching "healthy behaviours" online.

Graham Fraser
Technology reporter

Credit card checks, email-based age estimation and facial-age estimation. Just some of the methods of age verification which were suggested when the Online Safety Act determined that over 18s would have to prove their age to access adult material, including pornography.

So how could it work for someone trying to prove they are over the age 16? The government said Ofcom will set this out in the coming months.

What could be included? Iain Corby is from the Age Verification Providers Association, the trade body of companies who provide ways to prove your age.

“Establishing a minimum age of 16 presents additional challenges because some younger people have fewer sources of authoritative age data available to them than adults.

“Fewer minors hold passports, for example. However, other sources of age evidence are available, including bank accounts, electoral registration records and provisional driving licences.”

The minimum voting age is already 16 for local council elections in Scotland and Wales, as well as elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd.

Legislation to allow 16 and 17-year-olds across the UK to vote at the next general election is currently going through Parliament.

The Green Party has responded to the social media ban by saying that "stronger safeguards are clearly needed" for mental health and online safety, but highlights the risk of "potentially more dangerous platforms setting up".

In a statement, the Greens reference warnings from groups such as the NSPCC and the Molly Rose Foundation that a blanket ban “could leave some young people, particularly disabled and LGBTQIA people, more isolated and cut off from support”.

The party wants to see more investment in youth services and creative activities for young people “to fill the void that will be created by this ban”.

It says “social media companies that profit from addictive algorithms targeted at children must not be let off the hook” and that their owners must be held accountable.

Katie Williams
Live reporter

Under-16s will be banned from social media platforms as soon as spring 2027, Keir Starmer announced this morning.

Platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X are in scope, while messaging services like WhatsApp are not - here's a summary of key changes.

The PM says he will not compromise on the "safety and happiness of our children", accusing platforms of being "designed to be addictive" with features that "lock you in for hours".

Australia was the first country in the world to introduce a similar ban last December - Starmer says the government has learned from Australia and calls new UK measures "world leading".

Australian PM Anthony Albanese congratulated the PM on an "important step".

But six months on from the Australian ban, BBC reporter Tiffanie Turnbull says implementing it remains "incredibly difficult" with 70% of parents in a recent survey saying their children were still on banned platforms.

YouTube, Meta and Snapchat have responded saying the ban could push young people towards "less safe" platforms.

"If that's the best they've got, then I think they're in trouble," says bereaved father Mark Dowey in response.

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.