Mixed opinions on new social media ban for Sheffield parents - as enforcement remains a concern for many
Anti-knife crime campaigner Caroline Willgoose has challenged the government’s plans
Readers have shared their concerns about a proposed social media ban that will see young people restricted from accessing platforms like Facebook and Instagram.
The ban is set to start in spring 2027, and will see anyone under 16 banned from Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and X - formerly Twitter - according to government officials.
YouTube will be subject to a partial ban, with its sister site YouTube Kids - which is designed to be safe for children - still accessible.
Messaging sites like WhatsApp and Signal have not been included.
And while many have expressed support for the proposals, there have been concerns about how effective such a ban will be.
“I grew up without it, but I do think it will be hard to enforce and parents have to play their part and set an example to the children,” Tracy Benson commented when The Star asked for readers’ opinions on the matter.
Chantelle Clarke echoed this, adding: “Great, but it's up to parents to actually enforce this - those of us who don't want our kids on social media it makes no difference as they weren't having it anyway. Those who are happy for their kids to use it will continue to let their kids use it.
“I [suppose] a ban just helps those or us against it back up their argument why we aren't allowing it, but it's all down to the parents either way.”
Chris Wright wrote: “I agree with it in principle. But implementing it will be kind of impossible.”
The plans suggest following the example set in Australia - whose government have implemented similar bans - and are set to use technology to estimate someone’s age, with the aid of face scans or IDs.
However, many have raised concerns that VPNs - virtual private networks - will be able to bypass these systems, while others have are worried that the ban allows the government to introduce controversial digital ID plans through the “back door.”
Craig Strachan commented: “In theory, banning under-16s from social media is a good idea. The concerns are real: rising anxiety and depression, harmful content, cyberbullying, addictive algorithms, and the challenge parents face in monitoring what kids see online.
“The problem is enforcement.
“The proposals rely on age verification through facial age checks, digital IDs, or other verification methods. But realistically, many teenagers will simply use VPNs and other workarounds to bypass the restrictions.”
Lorraine Jackson wrote: “This is not about under 16s using social media, it’s about adults having to show id to get online and prove they are not under 16. Digital ID by the back door”
Caroline Willgoose, the mum of murdered schoolboy Harvey, also weighed in on the conversation, saying she was concerned that a ban would only push kids to use alternate, less-regulated platforms.
She explained how the Covid-19 pandemic left children “locked-up” for years, and now this ban will remove one of the ways they managed to maintain social relationships.
“No - make social media safer for the kids and vulnerable people,” she wrote.
“Children will always find a way round this which could lead to a darker place. There is a lot of money in social media they should use this by making it safe.
“Children need a platform to express themselves. They have been locked up two/three years of their childhood all they did was social media and now it’s [being] taken away from them. Let’s give them something back that’s safer.”