Youth Voices: Binish On Why A Social Media Ban for Under-16s Isn’t the Solution; It’s Avoiding the Real Problem

Following our recent conversation with young activist Binish about the proposed social media ban for under-16s, we invited her to explore the issue further.

Here, Binish (pictured below) argues that banning young people from social media risks overlooking the reasons they rely on it in the first place – from finding opportunities and communities to filling the gaps left by declining youth services.

Protecting children online is something almost everyone agrees on. Young people deserve to be safe from harmful content, online predators, cyberbullying, scams, and exploitative algorithms. But a blanket social media ban for under-16s is not the answer. Rather than tackling the root causes of online harm, it risks isolating an entire generation, widening inequality, removing opportunities, and shifting responsibility away from the technology companies that have failed to make their platforms safe.

Social media gives young people access to opportunities

Social media is no longer simply a place to share photos or chat with friends. It has become an essential part of modern life. Young people use it to learn new skills, access educational resources, discover careers, find apprenticeships, promote small businesses, showcase creative talents, network with professionals, and connect with communities that may not exist in their local area. For many teenagers, social media is the gateway to opportunities that previous generations simply didn’t have. A blanket ban removes those opportunities rather than teaching young people how to use these platforms safely and responsibly.

Taking away access won’t affect everyone equally

If you are from a wealthier background, your parents likely have access to private clubs or pay for you to attend extracurricular activities. You may receive personal tuition and be able to access your parents’ professional networks to find opportunities. For thousands of young people, like myself, social media helped fill this gap. Without social media, I would never have found out about organisations like Reclaim or Rekindle, or worked with MADE, where I’m now a Young Trustee. I wouldn’t have been able to reach them, and they wouldn’t have been able to reach me.

Social media is often the best way to hear about these opportunities. Taking away our access does not affect everyone equally. It disproportionately affects those who rely most on these free resources.

If we want young people offline, where are they supposed to go?

At the same time, politicians often argue that young people spend too much time on social media. But think about it like this. Over the past decade, youth centres, community projects, sports programmes, libraries, and local services have either closed or experienced significant funding reductions. There are now fewer safe places for young people to spend their time. If there are fewer affordable places to go, fewer organised activities to join, and fewer youth workers available to help with engagement, can we really be blamed?

Social media addiction should not be viewed in isolation from these wider social changes. When communities lose the spaces that once gave young people somewhere to belong, the digital world naturally fills that gap. Banning social media does not bring those opportunities back; it simply removes one of the few remaining free places where many young people connect with others.

If governments are serious about reducing unhealthy screen time and making social media a safer space, they should hold tech companies accountable through proper legislation, whilst rebuilding youth services and reopening community spaces, rather than expecting a ban to solve a problem rooted in years of underinvestment.

To hear more from Binish, read our original interview with her, where she shares her personal experience of social media and her initial response to the proposed under-16 ban.