Source: Sharecast
Unveiling the decision, Keir Starmer said the UK would "give kids their childhood back" and go "further than any country in the world".
He continued: "This is a line in the sand. Tech giants had their chance and failed but we’re stepping in to protect children, back parents and set a new normal for future generations."
The government did not provide specifics, including what technology would be used or how it would be enforced.
But it confirmed it intends to use the same model recently adopted by Australia, with the ban capturing user-to-user platforms, whose purpose is to enable social interaction and which allow users to post material, alongside algorithms. As a result, platforms including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X would need to increase their minimum age to 16 from 13.
WhatsApp and Signal will escape censure, however, as they are primarily messaging services.
Other measures being proposed include romantic companion chatbots being compelled to enforce a minimum age of 18, overnight restrictions and breaks in scrolling. There will also be restrictions on usage for 16 and 17 year olds, to prevent a cliff-edge at 16.
Teaching unions welcomed the ban, while England’s children’s commissioner called for it to be extended to all children up to the age of 18.
However, others voiced concern. In contrast to England, Scotland’s children’s commissioners, Nicola Killean, said the government - which carried out a consultation ahead of announcing the policy - had spoken to adults rather than children, and that a ban was not "proportionate, effective or enforceable".
A total of 9,499 parents and carers responded to the consultation, of which 89% said they supported a legal minimum age for social media access. The survey was self-selecting and not randomised. A total of 46% respondents also said a ban would not be effective.
Jim Gamble, a former head of Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre - part of the National Crime Agency - told the BBC that he did not know of "any social media expert" who thought a blanket ban would work, and that young people would find "easy workarounds" to stay online.
Amnesty International UK called it the "right diagnosis but the wrong prescription". Kerry Moscogiuri, chief executive, said: "Banning under-16s risks treating children as the problem rather than addressing the companies and systems that create the risks in the first place. Young people deserve to be safe online, but they also have rights."
A spokesperson for Meta Platforms, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said: "As we’ve seen in Australia, bans risk isolating teens from online communities and information, and driving them to unregulated alternatives that lack built-in protections and parental controls."
Snap Inc said the majority of time spent on its platform was in private messaging between friends and families, and warned that a ban risked disconnecting teens from those relationships. YouTube - which is owned by Google-parent Alphabet - said it was a "vital resource" for young people and that it had already invested in age-appropriate content and protections.
Plans are expected to be brought before Parliament before Christmas, with enforcement from next spring.