Connection doesn't disappear. It just moves.
- Jul 3
- 4 min read
Two research informed viewpoints on the UK Social Media Ban for Under-16s. Two researchers who've spent the last decade clocking up thousands of hours with kids and young people — and who are also mums navigating the same question at home.
Dr Matilda Andersson FMRS is CEO of Truth Consulting, ethnographer and cultural strategist, and mum of a soon-to-be 13-year-old girl. Taiye Akin-Akinyosoye is a Senior Consultant and qualitative specialist at Truth Consulting, and mum of two neurodiverse boys. After thousands of research hours with children, teenagers and parents — exploring social media use, online safety, gaming behaviour and fan culture — the proposed ban carries real weight for both of us. Here's what we think.
Matilda
The social media ban for under-16s isn't just a policy question. It's a youth culture question. As a mum, perhaps I should feel relieved. The overwhelming majority of parents consulted say they are. More than 83% of those who responded to the consultation informing the bad said the risks of social media outweigh the benefits. Nine in ten backed a minimum age of 16. That level of consensus tells you something significant about the mood around childhood, protection and technology right now.
But I’m not relived. My daughter is an only child, craving connection. It’s not like I don’t worry about bulling, body shaming, grooming – but I’m also acutely aware of the peer support and community she is looking for.
Can we really go backwards? Where else is culture actually being made at the moment? And why aren't we putting more pressure on big tech to do its job on safeguarding, rather than drawing a line around the users?
I'm not a technological determinist. I believe we can do good things with technology or bad things. It’s up to us as a society. The question is whether a blanket ban loses the good along with the bad.
We recently ran a scenario planning workshop on London in 2050. One of the recurring themes was connection — and specifically the fact that we're failing to reclaim the city for young people. There is very little public space where children and teenagers feel safe and welcome. If we remove the digital space they've made their own as well, where exactly does that leave them?
 I also don't believe the need to connect disappears. It moves. And it moves into more private spaces — some of which may be significantly harder to safeguard than the platforms we're trying to regulate.
There are genuinely divergent futures here. In one, a ban reshapes youth culture for the better: more physical socialising, gaming platforms and messaging apps filling the social layer, streaming gaining ground. In another, enforcement fails and behaviour goes underground — darker communities, closed networks, less visibility for parents, policymakers and brands alike. Discord, WhatsApp, gaming communities: all of these become more important. There's a wider question too. If we're drawing lines around young people's access to social platforms, what about LLMs and AI? You can't ring-fence Instagram and ignore everything else.
The real question isn't whether teenagers will read more books – will they? It's whether we're about to create a healthier youth culture — or simply a less visible one.
For any brand with a young people demographic, the scenario planning should start now.
Taiye Akin-Akinyosoye
For me, the social layer is the most important part of this conversation. I understand the concerns. But I keep coming back to whether banning or restricting access is really the answer — particularly for children who already conduct so much of their social lives online.
From our research, we know these spaces can become communities where young people feel genuinely understood, especially for those who find offline socialising harder. Critics of the regulation have noted the ban could isolate groups such as LGBTQ+ or neurodivergent youth who rely on these platforms for support networks.
But that's precisely why we need to ask harder questions: who is shaping those spaces, what norms are being established, and what are children actually being exposed to within them? The issue isn't whether these spaces are simply good or bad. It's about weighing the positives against the negatives honestly. They can offer connection, belonging and confidence. They can also raise serious questions around influence, safety and control.
The work we're doing at Truth in this space right now for our clients reflects that complexity — from safeguarding children in digital play environments and uncovering barriers to news consumption among young people, to understanding trust and influence on social platforms, and exploring how teen passions are nurtured across both digital and physical spaces.
We understand the dangers and the need for our children to be safeguarded on social platforms. We know how vulnerable they are online, and that's frightening for parents like us. But we also see the incredible creativity these spaces unlock and the world they offer access to. They let these children be in spaces they choose for themselves, and that matters enormously. So does that mean I don't see the dangers? No. It means we need to be more honest about safeguarding, what it should actually be targeting, rather than a blanket ban on a generation of children who have spent their whole lives communicating online.
The answer isn't just about access rules. It's deeper understanding about how we’re building safe and meaningful spaces for young people and credible connection with them.