https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/03/uk-politicians-continue-miss-point-latest-social-media-ban-proposal Skip to main content * About + Contact + Press + People + Opportunities + EFF's 35th Anniversary * Issues + Free Speech + Privacy + Creativity and Innovation + Transparency + International + Security * Our Work + Deeplinks Blog + Press Releases + Events + Legal Cases + Whitepapers + Podcast + Annual Reports * Take Action + Action Center + Electronic Frontier Alliance + Volunteer * Tools + Privacy Badger + Surveillance Self-Defense + Certbot + Atlas of Surveillance + Cover Your Tracks + Street Level Surveillance + apkeep * Donate + Donate to EFF + Giving Societies + Shop + Sponsorships + Other Ways to Give + Membership FAQ * Donate + Donate to EFF + Shop + Other Ways to Give --------------------------------------------------------------------- Email updates on news, actions, and events in your area. Join EFF Lists * Copyright (CC BY) * Trademark * Privacy Policy * Thanks Electronic Frontier Foundation Donate Electronic Frontier Foundation * About + Contact + Press + People + Opportunities + EFF's 35th Anniversary * Issues + Free Speech + Privacy + Creativity and Innovation + Transparency + International + Security * Our Work + Deeplinks Blog + Press Releases + Events + Legal Cases + Whitepapers + Podcast + Annual Reports * Take Action + Action Center + Electronic Frontier Alliance + Volunteer * Tools + Privacy Badger + Surveillance Self-Defense + Certbot + Atlas of Surveillance + Cover Your Tracks + Street Level Surveillance + apkeep * Donate + Donate to EFF + Giving Societies + Shop + Sponsorships + Other Ways to Give + Membership FAQ * Donate + Donate to EFF + Shop + Other Ways to Give UK Politicians Continue to Miss the Point in Latest Social Media Ban Proposal DEEPLINKS BLOG By Paige Collings March 30, 2026 A hand holding a cellphone showing a verification screen and ACCESS DENIED in the background. UK Politicians Continue to Miss the Point in Latest Social Media Ban Proposal Share It Share on Mastodon Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link A hand holding a cellphone showing a verification screen and ACCESS DENIED in the background. The UK is moving forward with its efforts to ban social media for young people. Ahead of this week's House of Lords debate on the topic, we're getting you situated with a primer on what's been happening and what it all means. What was the last vote about? On 9 March, the House of Commons discussed amendments tabled by the House of Lords in the government's flagship legislation, the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The House of Lords previously tabled an amendment to "prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users" of "all regulated user-to-user services," to be implemented by "highly-effective age assurance measures," which effectively banned under-16s from social media. When this proposal came before the House of Commons, MPs defeated it by 307 votes to 173. Instead, the Commons proposed its own amendment: enabling the Secretary of State to introduce provisions "requiring providers of specified internet services" to prevent access by children, under age 18 rather than 16, to specified internet services or to specified features; and to restrict access by children to specified internet services which ministers provide. Who does this give powers to? The Commons proposal redirects power from the UK Parliament and the UK's independent telecom regulator Ofcom to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, currently Liz Kendall, who will be able to restrict internet access for young people and determine what content is considered harmful...just because she can. The amendment also empowers the Secretary of State to limit VPN use for under 18s, as well as restrict access to addictive features and change the age of digital consent in the country; for example, preventing under-18s from playing games online after a certain time. Why is this a problem? This process is devoid of checks or accountability mechanisms as ministers will not be required to demonstrate specific harms to young people, which essentially unravels years-long efforts by Ofcom to assess online services according to their risks. And given the moment the UK is currently in, such as refusing to protect trans and LGBTQ+ communities and flaming hostile and racist discourses, it is not unlikely that we'll see ministers start restricting content that they ideologically or morally feel opposed to, rather than because the content is harmful based, as established by evidence and assessed pursuant to established human rights principles. We know from other jurisdictions like the United States that legislation seeking to protect young people typically sweeps up a slew of broadly-defined topics. Some block access to websites that contain some "sexual material harmful to minors," which has historically meant explicit sexual content. But some states are now defining the term more broadly so that "sexual material harmful to minors" could encompass anything like sex education; others simply list a variety of vaguely-defined harms. In either instance, this bill would enable ministers to target LGBTQ+ content online by pushing this behind an under-18s age gate, and this risk is especially clear given what we already know about platform content policies. How will this impact young people? The internet is an essential resource for young people (and adults) to access information, explore community, and find themselves. Beyond being spaces where people can share funny videos and engage with enjoyable content, social media enables young people to engage with the world in a way that transcends their in-person realm, as well as find information they may not feel safe to access offline, such as about family abuse or their sexuality. In severing this connection to people and information by banning social media, politicians are forcing millions of young people into a dark and censored world. How did each party vote? The initial push to ban under-16s from social media came from the Conservative Party, who have since accused the UK's Prime Minister Keir Starmer of "dither and delay" for not committing to the ban. The Liberal Democrats have also called this "not good enough." The Labour Party itself is split, with 107 Labour Party MPs abstaining in the vote on the House of Lords amendment. But we know that the issue of young people's online safety is a polarizing topic that politicians have--and will continue to--weaponize for public support, regardless of their actual intentions. This is why we will continue to urge policymakers and regulators to protect people's rights and freedoms online at all moments, and not just take the easy route for a quick boost in the polls. How does this bill connect to the Online Safety Act? The draft Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill that came from the Lords provided that any regulation pertaining to the well-being of young people on social media "must be treated as an enforceable requirement" with the Online Safety Act. The Commons amendment, however, starts out by inserting a new clause that amends the Online Safety Act. For more than six years, we've been calling on the UK government to pass better legislation around regulating the internet, and when the Online Safety Act passed we continued to advocate for the rights of people on the internet--including young people--as Ofcom implemented the legislation. This has been a protracted effort by civil society groups, technologists, tech companies, and others participating in Ofcom's consultation process and urging the regulator to protect internet users in the UK. The MPs amendment essentially rips this up. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall recently said that ministers intended to go further than the existing Online Safety Act because it was "never meant to be the end point, and we know parents still have serious concerns. That is why I am prepared to take further action." But when this further action is empowering herself to make arbitrary decisions on content and access, and banning under-18s from social media, this causes much more harm than it solves. Is the UK alone in pushing legislation like this? Sadly, no. Calls to ban social media access for young people have gained traction since Australia became the first country in the world to enforce one back in December. On 5 March, Indonesia announced a ban on social media and other "high-risk" online platforms for users under 16. A few days later, new measures came into effect in Brazil that restricts social media access for under-16s, who must now have their accounts linked to a legal guardian. Other countries like Spain and the Philippines have this year announced plans to ban social media for under-16s, with legislation currently pending to implement this. What are the next steps? The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill returns to the House of Lords on 25 March for consideration of the new Commons amendments. The bill will only become law if both Houses agree to the final draft. We will continue to stand up against these proposals--not only to young people' free expression rights, but also to safeguard the free flow of information that is vital to a democratic society. The issue of online safety is not solved through technology alone, especially not through a ban, and young people deserve a more intentional approach to protecting their safety and privacy online, not this lazy strategy that causes more harm than it solves. We encourage politicians in the UK to look into what is best, not what is easy, and explore less invasive approaches to protect all people from online harms. Related Issues Age Verification and Age Gating: Resource Hub Free Speech International Tags UK Share It Share on Mastodon Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link Related Updates a silhouette looks at the transgender flag while eyes watch them Deeplinks Blog by Rindala Alajaji, Molly Buckley | March 12, 2026 Rep. Finke Was Right: Age-Gating Isn't About Kids, It's About Control What's at stake is whether "protecting children" becomes a legal pretext for embedding government control over the internet to enforce specific moral and religious judgments--judgments that deny marginalized people access to speech, community, history, and truth--into law. [student-privacy-og] Deeplinks Blog by Rindala Alajaji | February 17, 2026 EFF to Wisconsin Legislature: VPN Bans Are Still a Terrible Idea Update, February 25, 2026: In response to widespread pushback, Wisconsin lawmakers have removed the provision banning VPN services from S.B. 130 / A.B. 105. The bill now awaits Governor Tony Evers' signature. While the removal of the VPN provision is a positive step, EFF continues to oppose the bill. Advocates... A hand holding a cellphone showing a verification screen and ACCESS DENIED in the background. Deeplinks Blog by Rindala Alajaji, Samantha Baldwin | February 12, 2026 Discord Voluntarily Pushes Mandatory Age Verification Despite Recent Data Breach Discord has begun rolling out mandatory age verification and the internet is, understandably, freaking out. We've written extensively about why age verification mandates are a censorship and surveillance nightmare. Discord's shift only reinforces those concerns. A blue hand holding a cellphone showing a verification screen and ACCESS DENIED in the background Deeplinks Blog by Joe Mullin | January 16, 2026 Congress Wants To Hand Your Parenting to Big Tech Instead of respecting how most parents guide their kids towards healthy and educational content, KOSMA hands the control panel to Big Tech. That's right--this bill would take power away from parents, and hand it over to the companies that lawmakers say are the problem. A hand holding a cellphone showing a verification screen and ACCESS DENIED in the background. Deeplinks Blog by Erica Portnoy | January 14, 2026 So, You've Hit an Age Gate. What Now? EFF is against age gating and age verification mandates, and we hope we'll win in getting existing ones overturned and new ones prevented. But mandates are already in effect, and every day many people are asked to verify their age across the web, despite prominent cases of sensitive data getting... [effecting_change_banner_age2] Deeplinks Blog by Melissa Srago | January 6, 2026 EFFecting Change: The Human Cost of Online Age Verification Age verification mandates are spreading fast, and they're ushering in a new age of online surveillance, censorship, and exclusion for everyone--not just young people. Join EFF for a conversation about what we stand to lose as more governments push to age-gate the web. We'll break down how these laws work... Bullhorn with "2025 Year in Review" coming out of it in bold letters Deeplinks Blog by Molly Buckley, Maddie Daly | December 31, 2025 Congress's Crusade to Age Gate the Internet: 2025 in Review In the name of 'protecting kids online,' Congress pushed forward legislation this year that could have severely undermined our privacy and stifled free speech. These bills would have mandated invasive age-verification checks for everyone online--adults and kids alike--handing unprecedented control to tech companies and government authorities.Lawmakers from both sides of... Bullhorn with "2025 Year in Review" coming out of it in bold letters Deeplinks Blog by India McKinney, Aaron Mackey | December 27, 2025 Lawmakers Must Listen to Young People Before Regulating Their Internet Access: 2025 in Review State and federal lawmakers have introduced multiple proposals in 2025 to curtail or outright block children and teenagers from accessing legal content on the internet. On top of violating minors' First Amendment rights, these laws also actively harm minors who rely on the internet to find community and support, and... Bullhorn with "2025 Year in Review" coming out of it in bold letters Deeplinks Blog by Paige Collings, Alexis Hancock, Christoph Schmon | December 25, 2025 Age Verification Threats Across the Globe: 2025 in Review Age verification mandates won't magically keep young people safer online, but that has not stopped governments around the world spending 2025 implementing or attempting to introduce legislation requiring all online users to verify their ages before accessing the digital space. A blue hand holding a cellphone showing a verification screen and ACCESS DENIED in the background Deeplinks Blog by Lisa Femia | December 11, 2025 Why Isn't Online Age Verification Just Like Showing Your ID In Person? This blog also appears in our Age Verification Resource Hub: our one-stop shop for users seeking to understand what age-gating laws actually do, what's at stake, how to protect yourself, and why EFF opposes all forms of age verification mandates. Head to EFF.org/Age to explore our resources and... Share on MastodonShare on XShare on Facebook Related Issues Age Verification and Age Gating: Resource Hub Free Speech International Related Tags UK Back to top EFF Home Follow EFF: * mastodon * facebook * instagram * x * Blue Sky * youtube * flicker * linkedin * tiktok * threads Check out our 4-star rating on Charity Navigator. Contact * General * Legal * Security * Membership * Press About * Calendar * Volunteer * Victories * History * Internships * Jobs * Staff * Diversity & Inclusion Issues * Free Speech * Privacy * Creativity & Innovation * Transparency * International * Security Updates * Blog * Press Releases * Events * Legal Cases * Whitepapers * EFFector Newsletter Press * Press Contact Donate * Join or Renew Membership Online * One-Time Donation Online * Giving Societies * Corporate Giving and Sponsorship * Shop * Other Ways to Give * Copyright (CC BY) * Trademark * Privacy Policy * Thanks JavaScript license information *