The UK Government's consultation on a potential social media ban for under-16s has sparked significant debate across Scotland's voluntary sector. As a Digital Inclusion Development Officer and as a parent of two young children growing up in an increasingly digital world, I found myself viewing the issue from different perspectives throughout the consultation, both professionally and personally. To inform SCVO's response, I gathered evidence from third-sector organisations working directly with children and young people. While opinions varied, one message came through consistently from youth workers, trustees, and charity leaders, age-based bans alone are a “false promise”. Protecting children online requires a far more nuanced and comprehensive approach than any single policy intervention can deliver. **But hey let’s go with a ban anyway!** A far more nuanced approach sits in direct tension with a growing international mood. Governments across the world such as [Australia](https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions) the first to implement a ban with parts of Europe following soon after, it’s the turn of the UK to consider a move towards age-based restrictions or outright bans on children's social media use, driven by mounting public pressure and concern about the harm’s platforms inflict on young people. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said ["all option on the table,"](https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/starmer-social-media-ban-options-under-16s-5HjdQtM_2/) and more than [60 Labour MPs](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/18/labour-mps-starmer-under-16s-social-media-ban) have written to push for an Australia-style ban for under-16s. Protection must not undermine participation and inclusion --------------------------------------------------------- Throughout the journey of this consultation there were several interesting points that I never considered, restricting access to social media is not a neutral act, it carries real costs, particularly for children who are already marginalised. The consultation highlighted that the internet, for all its dangers, has become an essential source of connection and belonging for young people who feel isolated or excluded in their offline lives. For neurodivergent young people, those who identify as LGBTQ+, or those living in rural communities with few local peers who share their identity, online spaces offer something genuinely vital, peer support, identity affirmation, and a sense of community that geography or circumstance might otherwise deny them. An outright ban that removes access to these spaces without providing any equivalent offline alternative is not a protective measure, it is an exclusionary one. _"I really see children that have a strong identity through it. They've got a sense of self...”._  Consultation Response   This led to further discussions around the unintentional consequences of age verifications that rarely receive attention, the impact on adults, particularly those who are already digitally excluded. Age verification systems are presented as tools to protect children, but in practice they operate as population-wide access controls. For older adults, kinship carers, people on low incomes, and those with limited digital skills, these systems introduce new barriers, document uploads, biometric checks, third-party authentication that may prove functionally inaccessible. There is a real risk that measures designed to improve online safety will instead deepen digital exclusion among those already most at risk. Proponents of age-based bans argue exposure to harmful content, and the impact on mental health, are so severe and so embedded in platform design that they cannot be mitigated through education or parental controls alone. Australia's government pressed ahead with its ban on under-16s on exactly this basis, placing the burden squarely on platforms rather than families.  As a parent, this appeals to me. For those who support bans, the exclusion argument, while real, is secondary to the scale of harm being documented in [children's mental health data.](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/articles/2026/childrens-extended-social-media-use-linked-to-increased-depression-and-anxiety-/) Some also argue that offline alternatives, properly funded youth services and community spaces should be invested in so that isolated young people have somewhere else to turn. Safety by design over age bans alone ------------------------------------ The consensus among those engaged highlighted that the problem is not about children's age, it’s about how social media platforms are built. Algorithms engineered to maximize engagement by exploiting emotional responses, infinite scroll features designed to prevent users from stopping, and marketing systems that target the most vulnerable users are not accidental features. They are deliberate design choices made by profitable companies. _“It feeds on the negative... it realises there is engagement there."_  Consultation Response A viewpoint shared by many within the consultation was a 'Safety by Design' approach that requires platforms to build in age-appropriate protections as the automatic default, rather than an optional extra buried in settings menus. An interesting consideration was the idea of a child safety kitemark comparable to the safety marks on children's toys that platforms would be required to earn, signaling compliance with design standards that genuinely protect young users. Again, as a parent these features appeal to me and wondered why is this not already a thing? _This got me thinking about a statement made during one of the interviews that seems so obvious and just common sense "It should be the reverse way where I don't need to go to the settings. They're already in place for my child. It's safety by design in the first place."_ Consultation Response Why is it that we don’t legislate to make 'safety by design' a mandatory standard for all platforms accessible to under-18s. Require age-appropriate settings to be automatically activated and hold tech companies legally accountable for enabling underage access, just like we do currently if we find underage drinking in a pub and the publican is held accountable. Critics of the 'design' approach argue that waiting for platforms to be redesigned through regulatory processes takes time that children don’t have. The UK's [Online Safety Act](https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-act), though one of the strictest acts in the world, took years to pass and is still being implemented. For families watching their children suffer harm now, legislative change to platform architecture may feel abstract and distant. **Community and youth work are essential delivery partners** The consultation reflects a consistent view among youth workers that schools are overstretched, constrained by curriculum requirements, and limited by the power dynamics of the teacher-pupil relationship to teach online safety within a school setting as the default. From the youth workers and community leaders engaged, it was agreed that third-sector organisations, youth clubs, community groups, and charities, offer different types of trusted relationships. Youth workers and community leaders are seen by many young people as trusted authority figures, which creates the conditions for honest, open conversations about difficult online experiences. Crucially, the response emphasises that meaningful digital safety work requires consistent staffing, long-term relationship-building, and access to regularly updated training and resources. The government cannot expect voluntary organisations to fill the gap left by platforms and schools unless it provides the resources to do so. As one youth worker succinctly puts it "That whole destination of an industry that supports young people outside the school is obviously challenged by resources. If you want it to happen, fund it." Consultation Response While few dispute the value of youth work, proponents of bans argue that community education is a slow-burn solution to a crisis that is happening in real time. Young people's mental health data, rising rates of anxiety, depression, and self-harm, suggest the current approach of education and awareness is not keeping pace with the speed at which platforms exploit young users. From this perspective, an age limit provides an immediate, enforceable backstop while longer-term cultural change is pursued. Adults and families need support too ------------------------------------ A recurring and underappreciated insight from those engaged is that the struggle for healthy digital habits is not exclusive to children. Adults, including parents, are equally susceptible to the same addictive platform features that concern them in their children's use. Adults who have not developed their own healthy relationship with technology are poorly positioned to model or enforce healthy digital habits for the young people in their care. The consultation paints a picture of parents who are willing but overwhelmed. The current parental control ecosystem is fragmented, technically complex, often expensive, and poorly communicated. Rather than a single unified point of control, parents must navigate separate settings at the router level, on each device, and within every individual application their child uses. The burden is described by contributors as navigating 'hoops' and 'layers of pages' experienced as prohibitive even by parents who consider themselves digitally confident. Many of the organisations that engaged in the consultation have parental responsibilities and shared similar statements like this one "I've got a house to run; I've got a job to do. When I was setting up my Xbox for my son, I had to set up a Unisoft account, an Unreal account... I don't have the inclination or the patience to be dealing with settings and stuff like that." Consultation Response An interesting dimension for me was the inequality around cost. The parental control tools that work, the ones effective enough to withstand a tech-savvy child's attempts to circumvent them, typically require paid subscriptions. For families on lower incomes, this creates a two-tier system in which protection becomes a privilege of wealth, which I never considered before. Everyone who took part in the consultation was very clear on this point that it cannot be another PDF guide or a one-off webinar. It requires recurring, informal, community-embedded digital literacy support delivered in familiar settings like libraries, community centers, and GP surgeries, by trusted facilitators who create a psychologically safe space for honest conversation about gaps in digital knowledge. Supporters of bans argue that placing responsibility on parents to configure controls and manage their children's digital lives is precisely the problem, it transfers the burden from well-resourced technology companies onto often time-poor and resource-stretched families. The more compelling argument, from this perspective, is to remove the need for complex parental intervention altogether, if a platform is inaccessible to under-16s by design and by law, then parents don’t need to become digital experts to protect their children.  As a parent myself, this appeals to me too. **SCVO Consultation Submitted** SCVO has now submitted its consultation to the UK Government, if you have managed to read this far, you can see why this debate is bigger than a ban.  The simplicity of a ban versus the structural complexity of redesigning platforms and rebuilding community infrastructure is likely to define children's online safety policy in the UK for years to come. SCVO's response within the consultation document makes it clear that the voices of those working closest with children and young people deserve to be central to it.  From a professional standpoint I wholeheartedly support and agree with this. Thank you to every youth worker, board member, young adult, staff member, charity, and community group who took part in SCVO’s consultation on this important issue. Your valuable insights, knowledge, and passion have genuinely challenged my perspective, both as a parent and as a digital inclusion professional. --- ## About SCVO SCVO (Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations) is the national membership organisation for Scotland's voluntary sector. Our role is to champion the role of voluntary organisations in Scotland and to support them to do work that has a positive impact. SCVO supports members and the wider voluntary sector with all aspects of setting up and running a voluntary organisation. SCVO represents the needs and concerns of the voluntary sector to the Scottish government in Holyrood and UK government and Westminster. Through our learning and events programme SCVO offers training and development opportunities to the sector. Members access an extensive membership benefits package including specialist, in-depth, 1-to-1 guidance from our Information Services team and from professional service partners. Access to exclusive membership networks (including comms, employers, governance and policy) supports members to grow their connections, stay up to date, exchange ideas and views with peers, and learn through tailored, learning opportunities. SCVO members enjoy free access to Funding Scotland Premium to stay on top of funding opportunities to support their organisation’s financial resilience. Discounts and savings savings on SCVO products and services (including our HR service, managed IT support, payroll service and events and training) and partner offers provide members with support to allow them to focus on delivering their organisation’s goals. Further SCVO products and services include [extensive digital support](https://scvo.scot/support/digital), a climate action resource [Growing Climate Confidence](https://climateconfident.scot), a voluntary sector publication [Third Force News](https://tfn.scot) and a voluntary sector jobs and recruitment service [Goodmoves](https://goodmoves.org). For more information on SCVO membership, visit [SCVO membership](https://scvo.scot/membership)