Older teenagers in the UK will face an overnight social media curfew, the government has announced – though they will be able to opt out of it by changing their account settings.
It would means apps such as Instagram, TikTok and YouTube being set to be unavailable by default to 16 and 17-year-olds between midnight and 06:00.
The government also wants “addictive” features such as auto-play and infinite scroll to be set to be disabled, saying – combined with the curfew – the measures will improve teenagers’ focus, sleep quality and family life.
However, critics have described the proposals as “piecemeal” and a “missed opportunity” for children’s safety.
The plans follow the announcement in June that under-16s in the UK would be banned entirely from a range of platforms.
“These measures will be crucial in helping young people get the sleep they need, focus on school and college, and spend more quality time with family and friends, all of which are fundamental to building a happy, healthy and fulfilling adult life,” said Technology Secretary Liz Kendall.
“We want young people to enjoy the benefits of technology while having the tools to make the online world a place where they can thrive.”
Laura Trott, the Conservative shadow education secretary, described the plans as a “dog’s dinner”.
“Either they think 16 and 17-year-olds should be on social media or they don’t, but curfews they can simply switch off won’t achieve anything,” she said.
The government said further measures would be aimed at helping children use AI chatbots safely – including by making providers introduce regular breaks for under-18s.
It says it will aim to lay its new proposed measures in front of Parliament by the end of 2026, with the aim that they take effect alongside its social media ban for under-16s next spring.
But some child safety charities and experts have cast doubt on the effectiveness or promise of a midnight curfew for older UK teens.
“While we welcome these measures for older teens, this latest move is yet another piecemeal set of announcements not the comprehensive plan for children’s safety that’s required,” said Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation.
He added that Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer “leaves office having announced a social media ban without a plan” – with his likely successor Andy Burnham to “inherit a series of missed opportunities”.
Meanwhile Prof Sonia Livingstone, an expert in children’s digital rights at the London School of Economics, said a curfew could harm vulnerable children by limiting their access to social media when they might need it most.
“If it’s a curfew on companies using push notifications to wake someone up in the night, absolutely have a curfew,” Prof Livingstone told the BBC.
“But if it’s a curfew that prevents a child in need of support or help or comfort reaching out to trusted sources in the middle of the night, I think that’s quite harmful potentially.”
Dame Rachel de Souza, Children’s Commissioner for England, said: “We have to listen to young people. They don’t want a ban, but they do want to be protected from addictive, infinite scrolling.”
She added: “I want to know more about how the policies, such as a curfew, will be delivered and will be watching closely to make sure they are effective – alongside pushing Ofcom to make full use of its powers to make the online world safer for children.”
Which social media platforms will be banned for UK under-16s?
Published16 June
‘One part of the puzzle’
The government trialled a range of possible interventions, including overnight curfews, in the homes of some families across the UK.
It saw 300 teens have their social apps disabled entirely, blocked overnight from 21:00 and 07:00 or capped to one hour’s use – with some also seeing no such changes at all – in order to compare their experiences over one month.
In a report published on Tuesday, the government cited its curfew trials as seeing the most sleep benefits, as well as more engaging and communicative family evenings, and a less burdensome set-up for parents.
It was also the most manageable option of the three to enforce, the report said.
“These findings show what parents have been telling us all along: when children spend less time on social media, the benefits are real,” Kendall said of the findings.
But Pete Etchells, professor of science communication at Bath Spa University, cautioned against relying too much on them.
“This is a small study that is one part of the puzzle in trying to understand how children and parents will navigate technology restrictions in a practical way,” he said.
VPN questions
The proposals outlined by the prime minister follow in Australia’s footsteps by banning social media for under-16s in the UK.
Australia’s restrictions, which took effect in December, saw a slew of social apps forced to close teens’ accounts and prevent them from opening new ones.
But the curbs have been criticised as ineffective, with many teens saying they can still access supposedly banned sites.
This, and questions over the feasibility of age checks for under-16s, has prompted some concern about the UK following suit.
Another point of concern had been suggestions by the government it might consider potential curbs around virtual private networks (VPNs).
On Tuesday, the government – citing findings from research it commissioned, external – said there was little to show VPNs were being used by many children to get around age checks.
Additional reporting by Chris Vallance
admin
