Will social media ban become obstacle to empowering young people?

When the government announced late last year that it would welcome influencers into tightly controlled media circles, the backlash sparked outrage from both the public and politicians.

Critics have argued that treating influential figures like traditional journalists is a way for ministers to avoid tough scrutiny.

Downing Street has always insisted that engaging with creators is a vital way to reach young voters; This demographic needs to be strongly reinforced as we prepare to extend voting rights to 16-year-olds for the first time.

However, when the next general election is held in the UK in 2029, those under the age of 16 will be banned from accessing social media for two years.

The first set of regulations, which include restrictions on platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X, may come into force in spring 2027.

MPs and social media pundits expressed concern about the “tension” between the two policies; Some have suggested that expanding voting rights while banning social media could leave the youngest voters vulnerable to online misinformation.

Some MPs also stated that they are concerned that the social media ban risks driving young people away from politics before they even vote.

Josh Dean, 26, is one of the youngest MPs and one of the only MPs who grew up with social media.

He recalls marching to Parliament Square at the age of 16 to call for votes after the Brexit referendum, after learning about the march on social media, and says it was “one of the greatest privileges of my life” to be on the benches of the Labor government that lowered the voting age.

But he said Independent He is concerned that young people “don’t feel listened to” about the government’s decision to impose a blanket ban, which could prevent them from engaging in politics in the long term.

“Young people participated in the consultations in good faith,” he said. “Many feel they are not being listened to. We want to empower young people, but I worry this may leave them wondering what the point is.”

He also worries that removing the “practical experience” of using social media before voting could leave young voters vulnerable to online misinformation once they turn 16.

“I am concerned about the potential conflict between the two policies because young people consume information digitally,” he explained.

“We can’t convince ourselves that this means they’re just going to go and buy a newspaper. And if we want young people to be interested in these things and also help them understand how to distinguish between information and disinformation, practical experience is really important.”

Fact-checking charity Full Fact criticized the government’s decision to ban under-16s from social media as “a virtual surrender in the fight against harmful online misinformation” that “gives social media companies a free pass”.

Mark Frankel, the charity’s head of public relations, said the ban felt like “taking with one hand and giving with the other”.

Latest Full Fact data shows that almost three-quarters (74 per cent) of young people aged 13 to 14 report seeing news, politics or current events related content online, with this proportion rising to 81 per cent among 15 to 17 year olds.

“We know that young people mainly get information from social media,” he said. “Preventing their access to information on social media platforms is a problem because you are also denying their level of media literacy.

“If the government is serious about widening participation in our democratic process to young people aged 16 and 17, restricting their access to these platforms is unlikely to help them become better informed.”

But James Armstrong, co-founder of social media agency Social Firefly, said politicians should not rely on social media to reach young voters, regardless of the ban.

“Social media is a useful place to reach them, but you have to find other ways to do it,” he explained.

He believes the ban could enable politicians to return to a more traditional way of reaching young people, including youth clubs and school debates, which Labor has said it will invest in as part of measures surrounding the ban.

“The government has said they will invest more in youth clubs and youth services,” he said. “Over time we may see political parties sponsoring youth debates in schools or starting to influence youth organizations by establishing closer relationships with them.”

But he also thinks it could spur innovation in how young people discuss politics online.

“We must remember that the ban is not on all websites,” he said. “Kids will still be able to access online avenues, get information, and if they are directed to the right information in the right way, it will give them the facts.”

He believes that parents, schools and older siblings will play a crucial role in directing children to reliable online sources, so influencers can continue to reach under-16s through the adults around them.

“Creating content for parents and older siblings is a really important part of all this,” she said. “You’re not targeting 14-year-olds, you’re targeting the people they’re listening to.”

A government spokesman said: “This is not a one-or-two option. Giving 16-year-olds the right to vote will strengthen young people’s involvement in democracy. Our decision to ban social media companies from providing services to under-16s reflects the fact that they have repeatedly failed to keep children safe online.”

“Those under 16 will continue to have access to the internet, news sites and platforms designed to be safe for them from the start. We are also strengthening the curriculum to make citizenship lessons compulsory in primary school and investing in projects that will help groups such as young people to participate in our democracy.

“We have also launched a campaign to provide parents and carers with practical tools to help children build resilience to misinformation and develop critical thinking skills online.”