Public 'trusts parents more than government' to decide appropriate social media for children
The Public Policy Research (IPPR) survey found that 51% trust parents to decide which platforms are appropriate - and only 15% trust Government ministers
The public trusts parents over government ministers to determine which social media platforms are appropriate for children, a survey has found.
Listen to this article
The Public Policy Research (IPPR) survey found that in a study of over 2,000 adults, 51% trust parents to decide which platforms are appropriate, 49% trust an independent regulator, 22% trust schools, 16% trust technology companies and 15% trust Government ministers.
This comes following widespread expectation that a ban on under-16s being able to access harmful social media sites will be announced by the prime minister.
This follows a government consultation which received 116,000 responses, making it the second-largest government consultation in history, after the equal marriage consultation in 2012.
The YouGov poll found that 44% support the banning of under-16s from social media, while 39% supported tighter restrictions.
Read more: Starmer to publish government's defence investment plan ahead of NATO summit next month
Read more: UK heading towards ‘poisonous’ politics of US, says Andy Burnham
Just over one in 10 participants believe social media should not be banned or more strictly regulated.
Nudity, exposure to strangers, algorithms learning user behaviour and recommending content were among the harmful age-inappropriate content features highlighted.
The research has led the IPPR to call for a blanket ban on social media for under-16s, but not just to protect children from harmful content.
Associate director at the IPPR and a former teacher, Avnee Morjaria, said: “Having spent years teaching in secondary schools, I saw first-hand how childhood has changed.
“More and more of children’s lives are now lived through screens. Previous generations had the freedom to make mistakes, experiment and move on. Today’s children are growing up under constant scrutiny, where every insecurity can be amplified and every mistake permanently recorded.
“A blanket social media ban for under-16s is the only effective option. Not because technology is inherently bad, but because we are allowing childhood itself to be shaped for the worse by algorithms.
“Childhood should be defined by real-world experiences, friendships and opportunities to grow, not by an endless competition for attention and approval. The greatest loss of the smartphone age is not privacy; it’s childhood itself.”
If enacted, the social media ban would follow in the footsteps of Australia, a country which implemented the policy in 2025. However, some groups have warned that a ban might only create superficial benefits.
The Molly Rose Foundation, set up in memory of 14-year-old Molly Russell, who took her own life in 2017 after viewing harmful content online, has warned that an Australia-style ban might offer only “the perception of security”.
According to polling published in April, three in five Australian children aged between 12 and 15 still have access to one or more online accounts, which should have been restricted since the law came into force last year.
A spokesperson for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said: “We have been clear that we want to get this right and ensure children can grow up safer online.
“That’s why we launched a national conversation on the future of children’s online safety, which received over 110,000 responses – one of the largest consultations under this Government.
“We will set out our next steps imminently, and we will do so in a way that is proportionate, evidence-led and puts children’s safety at the heart of our approach.”