The government’s announcement of a social media ban for under-16s, including the possibility of evening curfews for 16 and 17 year olds, will understandably generate debate across education and safeguarding circles.
Alongside the proposed under-16 ban, ministers have also signalled wider changes to how platforms themselves are designed and accessed, which would also affect older teenagers. These include restrictions on infinite scrolling and autoplay features, potential limits on certain AI-driven interaction, safety settings being enabled by default, and tighter controls on stranger contact. Together, these changes point to a broader shift from user-led engagement towards more tightly governed environments for all young people.
For the further education sector, in particular those working with learners ranging from 14 to 19 years old, the question is not whether the policy is well-intentioned: it is. The question is what it changes in day-to-day safeguarding.
From our experience in observing Australia’s recent implementation, the answer is unfortunately additional diligence and effort.
The leaky gate of age verification
We know that age-verification technology is unreliable. In Australia, where a ban came into force in late 2025, most Australian children are saying that it doesn’t stop them from accessing social apps.
Whilst the Australian government reported large numbers of cancelled accounts, the rumour is that this was simply an expedient purge by the affected publishers.
The young people we want to protect are either walking through the leaky gates of age-verification or are moving to riskier places.
This raises a particular challenge for the FE sector. Many colleges and sixth forms already operate mixed environments, with 14-16 year old learners sharing some spaces with 16-18 year olds. They are often using the same types of devices, networks and social platforms.
So in practice, safeguarding systems are already having to account for different age thresholds within shared digital environments. Tightening platform rules and age-based restrictions risks adding further complexities. For colleges, this could mean ambiguity in monitoring, policy enforcement and digital safeguarding practice.
A worrying false sense of security
Our deepest concern is a false sense of security in online safety creeping into education and home settings, with parents and young people holding very different views on effectiveness.
In our hard-earned experience in digital safeguarding, parent engagement is crucial and a blunt ban is anathematic to that and good outcomes.
A move to darker places
Young people do not simply disengage from social media or the wider digital ecosystem when restrictions are imposed. They adapt, finding alternative routes, often moving into less visible, less regulated, and more harmful spaces online.
In Australia, early evidence suggests that whilst platforms have removed large numbers of underage accounts, safeguarding outcomes have not improved. The country’s eSafety commissioner has acknowledged no notable reduction in cyberbullying or image-based abuse complaints involving age-restricted accounts compared compared with the same period as the year before, which challenges the assumption that removing accounts equates to reduced harm.
Account access and the YouTube problem
Australia’s social media ban applies to YouTube, which is the most used education app in the world. Furthermore, the ban only applies to “accounts” not accessing the app (in a logged out state) itself.
This creates a perverse outcome: schools are giving access to YouTube without the ability to use Google’s embedded safety features, which require users to be signed in.
We have to do something
When pressed on the practical, behavioural and technical challenges of a social media ban, the Australian government and the backers of the plan typically retort that “we must do something”.
We’re not sure that action likely to generate confusion and harm is the right direction, especially when alternatives exist.
Parents face impossible challenges to protect their children, with many internet connected devices in the home and scores of apps being used. These platforms all have “parent settings” however they do not interoperate. This is not true in the business world where safety and security technology can be universally installed on user-devices and can interact with online platform tools.
How best to solve digital safety is a matter for another paper, but for now, we urge UK’s educators to be vigilant and double down on online safety education.
This means strengthening digital education for learners and staff, supporting parents with practical tools and realistic expectations, and placing clear expectations on technology providers to build safer, more transparent systems.
It also means recognising a core principle many educators already understand, that safeguarding is not achieved by removing access alone. Understanding where harm occurs, how learners experience digital spaces, and how risks evolve across platforms is essential.
A social media ban may be a positive step forward, but for FE providers working with highly digitally connected cohorts, it should not be mistaken for a complete solution. The real challenge lies in building a joined-up approach that reflects how young people actually live, learn, and connect in the digital world today.