The under 16 social media debate

Do you think social media should be banned for under 16s? What about access to screens full stop? Within your role, you might be asking yourself how you’re actually engaging an under 16 audience specifically anyway, or perhaps wondering how you could. This blog isn’t about whether a ban should happen, but it is about what the debate means for public sector comms teams right now.

The Online Safety Bill has been a challenging one to get going. It’s like the ultimate shared document, with constant tweaks, suggestions and edits from your boss. But simply put, with life online, law makers are trying to retrofit the guardrails for all of us, and attempt to make online life and platforms safer for children and young people… spaces that were designed without them in mind. 

So, as many aspects of online safety have begun (think age verification on adult sites etc), there has been much discussion over whether the UK should follow in the footsteps of Australia and introduce a ban on under 16s using social media. 

If you looked at headlines alone, you’d be forgiven for thinking this seems like the best solution. However, the reality is far more complicated. 

There’s been growing political interest in introducing a ban after Australia’s came into effect in December 2025. Around 60 Labour MPs signed a letter publicly calling for the prime minister to act, it was also raised in PMQs by Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch. 

The House of Lords passed a vote on January 21 in support of a ban. It took place on an amendment to the government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill by cross-party peers led by Conservative former minister Lord Nash. While ministers opposed the proposal, the chamber as a whole opted to back the amendment. This means it will go back and forth a little before anything could be put into legislation. 

The government announced that a public consultation will be brought forward, to engage parents, children and civil society to help inform a final decision. 

A coalition of 42 child protection charities, online safety organisations, experts and bereaved families, have criticised a ban, suggesting one would fail to address the causes of online harm and would not deliver meaningful improvements in children’s safety or wellbeing. 

In short, it’s a seemingly simple answer to a far more complex issue. 

It’s worth being honest here: most public sector organisations are unlikely to be genuinely “cool” or culturally relevant to under-16s – and that’s OK.

Whether a ban comes into legislation or not, were under 16s a specific audience as part of your social media strategy in the first place? As with most audiences, one channel alone shouldn’t be the focus and when it comes to this younger group there are some things to consider that might help. 

Channels and reach

If under 16s are a specific audience what’s your current mix of channels? Facebook for parents (and Insta too is in that territory), email (parents/schools), social – what channel in particular? TikTok and YouTube perhaps? In which case – what specific content was made for under 16s? Probably not that much. Where do you show up with messages; in person events, schools, youth clubs, sports venues, public spaces (shops, transport links, cinema etc)?

Messaging and call to action

If you do have a specific message or offer for under 16s, map out where you speak to them directly and where you can talk about the offer and what action you’re calling for. For instance ‘if you’re aged 13-15 sign up here’ versus ‘if you know anyone aged 13-15 tell them about xxx’ would be a simple adjustment on social. But ban or no ban, thinking about what that interaction looks like is important. How you show up and introduce yourself now lays the foundation for those interactions at an older age too. But that doesn’t mean you should jump right in with a ‘council youth newsletter’ – because that’s unlikely to be how young people want to engage with you. 

Journeys and safeguarding

What would a CRM strategy or engagement funnel look like for your under 16s audience? What is for the broad group, and then which specific groups of under 16s do you need more engagement with? For those accessing support service, additional help – those links will not necessarily be through social media in the first place. Map out those journeys. 

Expectations of engagement

Think about the digital engagement you’re after: would it be realistic to expect them to follow your account, engage with your posts, comment etc? If you are creating content that’s designed to be of use to an under 16 audience (whether a ban happens or not) you should think about what’s realistic and appropriate. It’s ok to provide something useful on social without asking something of them in return. 

Principles and tone

What’s your stance on providing appropriate social content to youth audiences in the first place? This might be covered off by your principles or tone of voice, the kind of trends you would/wouldn’t do etc. These can also help guide the content on your channels. 

You may have programmes and departments who set up a series of social media accounts as a youth service or younger student engagement strategy for example, which drift into more sector voice versus specific youth content. 

Audit what channels sit where, who they’re really engaging, and, if you don’t mind getting your feelings hurt, work with your target audience to better understand what they want from you and how they rate your content. This will inevitably help you have a clearer view of what actually drives the best engagement for under 16s. 

Ultimately, the under-16 social media debate isn’t just about platforms or policy. It’s a prompt for public sector organisations to be clearer about who they’re trying to reach, why, and whether their current approach genuinely services young people.

Rebecca Roberts from Thread & Fable is one of Orlo’s Community Partners. She shares a weekly update on Engaging Youth on Substack which you can sign up for free here.