The proposed under-16 social media ban will split opinion.
Some people will see it as long overdue. Some will see it as unworkable. Some will worry about privacy, enforcement and children simply finding another way round it.
I understand all of those reactions.
I’m looking at it from three angles: as a parent, as someone who works in cyber security, and as someone who has spent years around schools, education technology and safeguarding conversations.
And my honest view is this:
“A ban may create the boundary, but it will not do the parenting, teaching or safeguarding work for us.”
That does not mean the ban is pointless. It means we need to be honest about what it can and cannot do.
Parents have been left carrying too much
As a parent, I completely understand why so many families want a clear line.
Parents are tired of trying to raise children in an online world that was not built with childhood in mind.
The endless scroll.
The pressure to reply.
The streaks.
The fear of being left out.
The livestreams.
The adult strangers.
The algorithms that know exactly how to keep a child watching for one more minute.
That is a lot to put on families. It is far too much to put on children.
A lot of the online safety advice aimed at parents sounds simple from the outside.
Set limits.
Have conversations.
Check privacy settings.
Use parental controls.
Keep devices out of bedrooms.
All useful. All sensible. But real family life is not a policy document.
Parents are juggling work, school, homework, friendship dramas, tired children, family pressures and their own screen use. Many are trying to make decisions about apps they did not grow up with, designed by companies with huge behavioural data teams behind them.
That is not a fair fight.
“Parents are not failing because they struggle with social media. The system is failing when childhood is expected to compete with a business model built to capture attention.”
That is why I understand the appeal of a national boundary.
It gives parents something they often lack: backing.
Instead of one household trying to say no while every other child appears to be on the app, there is a clearer societal line.
That matters, but it still needs to be handled carefully.
A ban is not a magic shield
As someone who works in cyber security, I know that bans are never the whole answer.
People try to get round controls. That is true in businesses, schools and homes.
Children will borrow accounts. Some will lie about their age. Some will use VPNs. Some will move to other platforms. Some will use features inside games, messaging apps or AI tools that were not the main target of the original rule.
That does not make the ban worthless.
We do not abandon speed limits because some people speed.
We do not abandon door locks because some people pick locks.
Controls still matter. Boundaries still matter.
But the real question is: what sits behind the boundary?
Good online safety is not just about blocking access. It is about reducing harm by design.
That means fewer routes for adults to contact children.
Fewer features that push children into risky behaviour.
Less reward for compulsive use.
Better reporting.
Better default privacy settings.
Better moderation.
Better age assurance.
Better accountability.
And yes, better support for parents and schools.
“If the answer is only ‘parents should monitor it’, we have missed the point. Parents did not design the platforms, the algorithms or the addictive features.”
We need to move away from blaming families after harm happens and start asking why so much risk was allowed into children’s online spaces in the first place.
Technology is not the villain
As an EdTech pro, I am also wary of turning this into “technology bad, childhood good”.
That is too lazy. Technology can be brilliant for children.
I have seen it help pupils learn, create, research, communicate, access support and build confidence. For some children, the right technology removes barriers that would otherwise hold them back.
The problem is not children using technology.
The problem is children being dropped into adult-scale platforms, commercial algorithms and social pressure systems before they are ready.
There is a big difference between a child using a tablet to create a video for a school project and a child being pulled into a platform designed to maximise attention, collect data and serve endless content.
There is a big difference between educational technology and attention technology.
There is a big difference between digital skills and digital dependency.
We need children to understand technology.
We do not need them being trained by apps to crave constant validation.
Schools will end up carrying this
Schools will be dragged into this conversation. They always are.
Parents will ask questions.
Teachers will hear about the problems first thing in the morning.
Safeguarding teams will deal with the fallout.
IT teams will be asked what can be blocked.
Governors and trustees will want to know what the school is doing.
School leaders will need to understand how this links to filtering and monitoring, safeguarding, acceptable use, mobile phone policies, online behaviour, digital literacy and parental communication.
My concern is that the headline will be strong, but the practical support will be thin.
Schools do not need another vague expectation placed on them.
They need clear guidance, sensible resources and realistic support.
They also need parents to understand that school filtering is not the same as home protection, and that blocking something on a school network does not control what happens on a child’s own device using mobile data.
That distinction matters.
Filtering in school has a role.
Parental controls at home have a role.
Device settings have a role.
Education has a role.
Family routines have a role.
None of them works perfectly on its own.
What I do as a parent
I am not writing this from a perfect-parent pedestal.
I use technology with my own children. I also use controls.
In our house, Qustodio is one of the tools I use.
I don’t use it because I think the software can parent for me. It can’t. I use it because it gives structure. It helps with screen time. It can help manage app access, website access and routines. It gives me better visibility than guesswork.
But I still have to parent.
I still have to explain why a limit is there.
I still have to deal with the complaints.
I still have to adjust settings as children get older.
I still have to accept that some conversations are awkward.
Parental control tools are useful, but they are not a substitute for trust, boundaries and talking.
“A parental control app should support parenting. It should not become parenting.”
That is an important distinction.
Children need to understand why something is blocked, limited or delayed. Otherwise, they only learn one lesson: how to bypass the control.
DNS filtering: useful, but often misunderstood
This is where my cyber security background kicks in.
DNS filtering can be very useful, but it is often misunderstood.
DNS is the system that helps devices find websites and online services. In simple terms, it turns a website name into the address your device needs to connect to.
Filtering at DNS level can stop access to some risky places before the device gets there.
At home, families may come across tools from broadband providers, router settings, Google family tools, SafeSearch settings or public DNS services.
Google Family Link and SafeSearch can help parents manage certain Google services, search settings and content controls. They are useful, especially on Android and ChromeOS devices, but they are not a complete whole-house safety net.
Quad9 is another good example, but it is important to understand what it is for. Quad9 is designed to block malicious domains, such as domains linked to malware, phishing, spyware and botnets. It is not there to block general content categories.
That matters because many parents hear “DNS filtering” and assume it will automatically block everything they do not want their child to see.
It usually won’t.
For businesses, schools and organisations, DNS protection can go much further when it is properly managed.
This is where tools like Heimdal DNS Security fit. In a business setting, DNS, HTTP and HTTPS filtering can help block malicious domains, suspicious connections, phishing links, command-and-control traffic and other risky activity before the endpoint has to deal with the full attack.
For a small business, care provider or school.
People click things. That is normal.
A good cyber security setup accepts that people will sometimes click and puts extra layers in place to reduce the damage.
“Good security does not rely on everyone making the perfect decision every time.”
That applies to children at home.
It applies to staff in schools.
It applies to adults in businesses.
People need support, not blame.
The privacy question cannot be brushed aside
Age assurance is going to be one of the hardest parts of this.
How do platforms know someone is under 16?
How much data is collected?
Who checks it?
Where is it stored?
Can it be reused?
What happens if it is breached?
What happens if a child does not have official ID?
What happens if the system gets it wrong?
These are not minor details. They are central to whether the policy works safely.
There is a danger that, in trying to protect children from one online risk, we create another one around identity, surveillance and data collection.
That does not mean age checks should be abandoned.
It means they need to be proportionate, privacy-conscious and properly regulated.
As a cyber security person, I am always cautious when any system asks for more personal data.
As a parent, I want my children protected.
Those two things are not in conflict.
We should be able to protect children without normalising unnecessary data collection.
The danger of pushing children into darker corners
Another risk is displacement.
If mainstream platforms are harder to access, some children may move to less visible places.
Private groups.
Gaming chats.
Unmoderated forums.
Alternative apps.
Anonymous platforms.
AI chatbots.
That is why the Government’s focus on harmful features matters, not just named platforms.
Children do not experience online harm in neat categories.
They do not think: “I am now on a social platform, now in a game, now in a messaging app, now using an AI chatbot.”
To them, it is just online life.
The risks move across services.
So the response has to follow the behaviour, not just the brand name.
The areas I would watch closely are stranger contact, livestreaming, anonymous messaging, recommendation algorithms, AI companions, image sharing and private groups where adults can reach children.
That is where practical safeguarding will matter.
“Just talk to your children” is true, but incomplete
Every online safety expert says parents should talk to their children.
They are right.
But it can sound a bit smug if we leave it there.
Some children talk openly. Some do not.
Some parents feel confident. Some do not.
Some families have calm routines. Some are in survival mode.
Some children are already anxious, isolated, bullied or desperate for acceptance.
The children most at risk may be the least likely to come forward early.
So yes, talk to children.
But also build safer defaults.
Reduce contact from strangers.
Limit addictive features.
Give parents usable tools.
Give schools proper support.
Make reporting easier.
Make platforms accountable.
We need both.
Conversation and control.
Education and enforcement.
Parenting and product responsibility.
What parents can do now
This policy is not expected to change family life overnight.
Parents still need practical steps now.
I would start with these.
Check the age ratings and privacy settings on the apps your child uses.
Use device-level controls where you can.
Look at tools like Qustodio, Apple Screen Time, Google Family Link or Microsoft Family Safety, depending on the devices in your home.
Use SafeSearch and content restrictions where they are available.
Speak to your broadband provider about family filtering.
Consider whether DNS protection is useful, but understand what it does and does not block.
Keep devices out of bedrooms overnight if that works for your family.
Talk about pressure, not just danger.
Ask about group chats, streaks, bullying, stranger contact and what happens when they feel they cannot leave a conversation.
Make it clear they can come to you without instantly losing the device.
That last one matters. If a child thinks telling the truth automatically means punishment, they may hide the problem until it is much worse.
What schools and organisations should think about
For schools, this is another reminder that online safety is not just an IT issue.
It belongs in safeguarding, leadership, curriculum, parental engagement and governance.
Schools should review how they explain filtering and monitoring to parents.
They should check whether acceptable use policies reflect how children actually use technology now.
They should make sure staff know how to respond when online issues spill into school.
They should help governors understand the difference between technical controls, safeguarding processes and digital education.
They should avoid treating filtering as a tick-box exercise.
For businesses and local organisations, there is a lesson too.
The same attention economy that targets children also trains adults to click quickly, respond instantly and trust familiar-looking prompts.
Phishing works because people are busy.
Social engineering works because people are human.
Malicious links work because one click can be enough.
DNS protection, email security, endpoint protection, MFA, patching, backups and security awareness all sit in that wider picture.
Children need safer digital spaces.
Adults need safer digital workplaces.
The principle is the same: reduce the chance that one bad click becomes a crisis.
The real issue is the business model
This is the part we should not dodge.
Many of these platforms make money from attention.
The more time people spend scrolling, watching, reacting, sharing and returning, the better it is for the platform.
Children are not well equipped to push back against that.
Many adults are not either.
So when we talk about personal responsibility, we need to be honest about the imbalance.
A child with a smartphone is not negotiating on equal terms with a technology company using behavioural design, data, testing and algorithms to maximise engagement.
That is why “just teach resilience” is not enough.
Resilience matters.
Digital education matters.
But product design matters too.
“We should not be asking children to show more self-control than the platforms show responsibility.”
That, for me, is the heart of it.
My view
I support the idea of a clearer boundary for under-16s.
I also think the details will matter enormously.
If this becomes a simple ban with weak enforcement, poor privacy safeguards and little support for families and schools, it will disappoint people.
If it is part of a wider shift towards safer design, better defaults, stronger accountability and proper digital education, it could help.
Not fix everything.
Help.
And that is worth taking seriously.
The online world is now part of childhood. Pretending otherwise is pointless.
But childhood should not have to compete with a system designed to capture attention at any cost.
Children need room to grow.
Parents need support.
Schools need clarity.
Tech companies need responsibility.
And all of us need to stop pretending that this is just about screen time.
It is about power, design, childhood and trust.
If the product needs children to be hooked, nudged, profiled and kept scrolling to make money, the problem was never the child.
