The UK Government is now preparing to ban under-16s from social media. (Stacey, 2026)

As is often the case, the public is presented with a simplified moral justification: “It’s to protect children.”

At this point, I genuinely have to ask: what is your excuse?

Politicians may claim incompetence. Perhaps they lack understanding of the technology, or perhaps they understand it and are being deliberately misleading. Alternatively, they may be promoted, funded, or protected because their ignorance serves the interests of others.

But what is your excuse?

You are not compensated to repeat official narratives. You do not receive donor funding or advancement to ministerial positions. Some individuals may genuinely support these measures out of concern for children's well-being. However, when defending a system that offers no tangible benefit, it is important to consider what motivates such support.

The UK already has laws covering child protection, grooming, explicit material, terrorism, malicious communications and online abuse. For example, the Online Safety Act requires platforms to swiftly remove illegal content and empowers Ofcom to fine companies that fail to comply; notable prosecutions have occurred under the Sexual Offences Act and the Malicious Communications Act in recent years. The Information Commissioner's Office has already imposed penalties on companies for failing to protect children's data under the Data Protection Act. It already has investigatory powers. It already has regulators. It already has ways to punish companies and criminals. (Online Safety Act 2023, n.d.)

Therefore, when authorities claim that new age checks, access management, and platform limitations are necessary “for the children,” it is important to question what has actually changed to warrant these measures.

• If this were about predators, prosecute predators
• If this were about harmful companies, punish the companies
• If this were about illegal material, enforce the laws already on the books.

However, if the proposed solution includes age verification, digital access control, platform filtering, and state-sanctioned visibility, it is misleading to assert that these measures are solely intended for child safety. Such controls affect not only children but also establish precedents that may extend to adults. There are already documented cases highlighting these risks: for example, in Germany, the implementation of NetzDG compelled platforms to over-censor content out of caution, resulting in the deletion of lawful posts and the suppression of legitimate speech (Article 19, 2021). In South Korea, mandatory real-name registration on internet forums and games led to significant breaches in personal data privacy and ultimately to a Supreme Court ruling declaring the policy unconstitutional after multiple incidents of identity theft (Park & Chung, 2020). Similarly, when Australia introduced national online age verification schemes, privacy experts warned that these systems created new databases of personal information vulnerable to hacking, raising further concerns about mass surveillance (Electronic Frontiers Australia, 2019). Mandatory age checks and broader access restrictions can erode privacy, limit free expression, and create mechanisms that could facilitate broader surveillance or censorship of the entire population, not just minors. (Horten, 2023)

These measures represent a form of internet governance.

So again: what is your excuse?

Is there reluctance to critically evaluate these policies? Is there apprehension about challenging the prevailing moral narrative? Or is it simply more convenient to repeat the slogan “protect the children” rather than examine who benefits from controlling access to information? Of course, it is important to acknowledge the arguments made by supporters of these measures. Proponents assert that the risks posed by online environments are unprecedented and that existing safeguards are insufficient to address new forms of digital harm, such as cyberbullying and online radicalisation. They argue that age verification and stricter access controls provide an essential layer of protection and can create a safer digital space for young users. Furthermore, advocates often point to studies indicating a correlation between social media use and negative mental health outcomes among minors, suggesting that the state has a duty to intervene when industry self-regulation fails. While these concerns are not unfounded and deserve careful consideration, it remains crucial not to accept justifications at face value. Instead, it is essential to read the full text of policy proposals and analyse their stated objectives and methods. Consider who stands to gain from these changes, whether similar measures have been effective elsewhere, and what the consequences have been. Seek independent reporting, consult expert analysis, and engage in discussion with others to develop a comprehensive perspective. By questioning, researching, and sharing findings, individuals contribute to a more informed and critically engaged public debate.

Because, unlike the politicians, you are not being paid to be this useful.