Yesterday the UK Government announced it will ban under-16s from accessing social media services, including Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat, with the legislation coming into force next year. While the move has been welcomed by child welfare groups, questions remain over the effect on online harms, tech products, and the brands who advertise on those platforms.
VideoWeek asked six experts from across the industry for their views on the ban, and how it will impact media and advertising.
Harriet Kingaby, Co-Founder, Conscious Advertising Network
Harmful products should not be in the hands of children, and it’s clear that many parents want stronger protections. My concern is that a ban alone isn’t enough. The deeper problem is the attention economy underpinning many digital platforms: business models designed to maximise engagement and revenue. As advertisers, we’re part of that ecosystem. The risk is that policymakers and platforms point to a ban and say, “We’ve solved it,” while leaving the root causes untouched.
What’s particularly concerning is that AI companies appear to be adopting many of the same dynamics that have driven harms on social media. Recent controversies have raised questions about addictive design and inadequate safeguards. If we fail to address the incentives at the heart of the attention economy, we risk repeating the mistakes of social media at even greater scale. This ban should be the start of the conversation, not the end.
Christina Miller, Chief Social Officer, EMEA, VML
The UK’s proposed social media ban for under-16s is less a crisis for brands and more a natural evolution of the marketing landscape. Responsible advertisers were never targeting children as a primary audience, so the practical impact may be more modest than initial headlines suggest.
What this does represent is an opportunity to refine and diversify how brands connect with younger audiences through more meaningful, appropriate channels. Gaming, sport, music, experiential and family-focused media have always offered genuine cultural connection – this shift simply accelerates investment in these spaces.
For brands already prioritising first-party relationships, owned communities, and loyalty programmes, the transition will be relatively straightforward. The regulatory direction of travel has been clear for some time, and forward-thinking marketers will have been reducing platform dependency regardless.
Ultimately, this is a pivot rather than a disruption; one that encourages a healthier, more responsible approach to youth marketing that the industry should welcome.
Tim Rudder, Co-Founder, UpTalkTV
The UK’s under-16 social ban marks the death of big social platforms owning the “second screen” – and the birth of true multi-screening. For years, second-screening meant sending audiences away to third-party apps like TikTok or X to “join the conversation.” That fractured loop is now legally broken for youth and families.
But the second screen lives on; it’s just finally coming home. This ban gives broadcasters the push to own the second screen rather than rent it. It forces a shift away from external platforms and accelerates the value of building resilient, compliant engagement within the publisher’s own environment.
By bringing interaction directly to the viewing experience, broadcasters don’t just solve an existential compliance issue – they reclaim the audience, the data, and the revenue that they have been handing to Big Social for years.
Fiona Salmon, Managing Director, Mantis
As a parent of three children under 16, I can absolutely see the benefits that this ban will bring, but do feel there will need to be an element of herd mentality, with all parents agreeing to toe the line to avoid some children feeling ostracised if their parents are the only few enforcing it.
Even with a ban in place, it does remain the platforms’ responsibility to only publish safe content. Blocking unsafe content at source happens on the open web, and it could easily take place on socials too, but so far the platforms have refused to incorporate this.
These platforms can be very influential on younger audiences, as highlighted by Ofcom research last year, when 52 percent of 12-15 year-olds said they believe the news they see on social media is trustworthy. These impressionable audiences should be encouraged to read appropriate, quality journalism from premium publishers to help them recognise and value editorially fact-checked content.
Rob Blake, MD EMEA, Channel Factory
Social platforms are the digital equivalent to public squares; anyone with an internet connection can voice their opinion. But it’s not just the platforms that need to take a responsible role towards under-16s but also the people creating content, and advertising on them.
The policy question should not simply be whether social media is harmful to young people, but why certain environments become harmful in the first place. Research indicates that teenagers spending more than three hours a day on social platforms face significantly higher risks of anxiety and depression. Yet the advertising industry continues to focus on being brand ‘safe’ (ensuring ads do not appear next to inappropriate content), rather than on whether advertising supports environments that are suitable.
Advertisers have both the data and the influence to prioritise content that meets higher standards, including environments that promote positive and age-appropriate experiences. Doing so does not require sacrificing the performance of their ad spend; it requires redefining how success is measured.
Samira Brophy, Senior Director, Creative Excellence UK, Ipsos
It’s going to look like a good first step to many, but I can see why people are waiting to see if/how this and the existing Online Safety Act might be more strongly enforced going forward. Regulation needs strong enforcement to work.
Meanwhile, we are seeing the effects of digital splintering in the Ipsos data looking at views of young people new to adulthood, particularly by gender. The end goal should ideally be to extend protection as a principle beyond age 16 as we observe that people remain vulnerable beyond this age too.
I am not 100 percent convinced an age-related approach is the way to achieve the wider positive effects, and I defer to organisations like the Molly Rose Foundation who have done excellent work advocating for education to recognise harm early and report it safely.
Follow VideoWeek on LinkedIn.
