Report: Safety or Censorship? Weston’s Teenagers share their views on the Proposed Social Media Ban

A proposed ban on social media use for under-16s has sparked debate across the country, with politicians, parents, teachers and tech companies all weighing in.

But one group sits right at the centre of the issue, young people.

For under-18s, social media is not just entertainment, it's part of how they socialise, learn and is a place to truly express themselves. So how do they feel about the possibility of stricter age limits and legal restrictions?

We wanted to find out, so our reporter, Henry Donhou spoke with a wide range of teenagers from across our town to get a feel for what they thought about the proposed social media ban and this is what he found out.

Report by Henry Donhue:

Speaking with students aged between 13 and 18 across local schools and colleges in Weston, opinions are mixed, thoughtful, sometimes conflicted and often more nuanced than many adults might expect.

One clear pattern stands out.

There is no single ‘youth view’. Instead, attitudes often depend on age and their personal experience with social media.

I found that younger teens across our town oppose the idea of a social media ban. For many younger teens social media is their main way of staying in touch with friends outside school hours.

Group chats, shared videos and online gaming communities are seen as extensions of their real-world friendships.

Many Year 10 students expressed that they think “it would be a controlling and a quick way to lose freedom”. With none of them willing to change their view on the topic.

Older teens, however, are more divided.

Some support restrictions or at least stronger controls especially when they reflect on how social media affected them when they were younger. With one A-level student saying “we have all seen horrendous videos on social media that no one wants to see” adding “We could all do with a media detox at some point, maybe this is where we start”.

One Sixth Former stated “Is the policy supposed to protect us or control us… either way people have ways around so you have to question the true effectiveness it would have on kids”.

Even among teens who oppose a full ban, there is broad awareness that social media can negatively affect mental health. Under-18s frequently mentioned pressure, comparison and overuse as real problems.

Several students described feeling pulled into endless scrolling, frequently dubbed ‘doom scrolling’, sometimes losing sleep or struggling to switch off while revising for exams. Others mentioned the pressure to reply quickly, maintain streaks or keep up with trends.

Importantly, most young people do not frame the issue as “social media is bad” but rather “social media is powerful and is easy to misuse”.

Common concerns raised by young people in Weston we spoke to included;

• Comparing appearance and life style to influencers

• Distraction from schoolwork

• Exposure to arguments, drama or negativity

• Time lost that could be used for sports and creative arts.

However, many also pointed out that these issues are not experienced equally. Some said their social media feeds are mostly positive, focused on sports, music, study tips and comedy.

A recurring theme among those I spoke to thought that education may work better than prohibition.

Many teenagers argued that instead of banning under-16s from social media entirely, schools should spend more time teaching digital skills including how algorithms work, how to manage screen time, how to spot misleading content and how to handle online conflict.

A few suggested mandatory digital competency lessons starting in primary school, so that younger users build healthy habits before joining platforms.

Some primary schools already share a detailed guide for parents and children on how to stay safe on social media platforms and games.

There is also support for clearer reporting systems and faster action against harmful content. Several teens said that rules already exist but are not enforced consistently.

A large talking point on the ban is that it would be very difficult to enforce.

Many pointed out how easy it currently is to enter a false birth date when creating an account. Some predict that a ban would simply push younger users toward shared accounts, older siblings’ profiles, or lesser-known platforms with weaker safeguards.

This has already been showcased with the Australian legislation that has been enforced recently. 

“There will always be a workaround,” one student said. “It might just make it less safe, not safer.”

Others worry that strict ID checks could raise privacy concerns, especially if platforms require official documents. Young people I talked with were often more aware than many might expect about data security and how their personal information is handled.

Adults often focus on the risks, but under-18s strongly emphasise the benefits. For many, social media is not just passive scrolling — it is creative and social.

Young people I spoke with highlighted positives such as running small online businesses, sharing artwork, music or videos, finding niche interest communities, learning skills through short tutorials, following educational creators and organising clubs, events and campaigns.

Some teens involved in local sports teams and youth groups said social platforms make coordination much easier. Fixtures, schedule changes and announcements are often shared online first.

While views differ on a full under-16 ban, many of the young people I spoke with were in favour of a middle-ground approach.

Suggestions commonly raised included stricter time-of-day limits for younger users, default screen-time caps and stronger content filters for under-16 accounts

Rather than removing access entirely, these measures would aim to reduce harm while keeping connection and opportunity.

Interestingly, several teens said that limits would be more effective if applied universally, not just to children arguing that unhealthy use is not limited to young people.

Young people also recognise the role of parents and carers. 

Some believe adults rely too heavily on platforms to act as gatekeepers, instead of setting consistent home rules.

Students described big differences between households from strict phone curfews to no limits at all. Many made clear that agreed boundaries work better than sudden restrictions.

“Rules make more sense when they’re explained,” one student noted. 

A number of young people said they would accept later access ages more easily if adults also showed balanced phone habits themselves.

A repeated point across interviews is that maturity does not perfectly match age. Some 13-year-olds manage online spaces responsibly, while some older teens and adults struggle.

Because of that, some students favour a readiness or education-based system rather than a strict age cut-off, though they admit this would be harder to design fairly.

One of the strongest feelings expressed by under-18s is that their views should be included in decisions that affect them directly. Many said policies about youth technology use are often created without enough direct consultation with young users.

Students suggested youth panels, school consultations and student surveys should be part of the legislative process.

“Adults talk about us, but not with us… it is so frustrating” one said.

Overall from the young people I spoke with, the proposed under-16 social media ban is neither universally rejected nor widely supported without question.

Instead, young people displayed to me a careful awareness of both risks and benefits. Many accept that change may be needed but favour smarter controls, better education and shared responsibility over outright prohibition.

The message was consistent, social media is now woven into youth life, and any rules around it should reflect that reality. The debate, they say, should not just be about keeping young people offline but helping them be safer and more informed online.