���ϲ�����

Looking on from the other side of the world, the UK’s proposed social media ban already seems to be progressing along very familiar lines. As education researchers now dealing with the aftermath of hastily implemented policy, this blog posts set out some thoughts on the UK proposals, as well as what UK researchers might be facing as the Labour government’s plans get fast-tracked onto the statute books.

Familiar academic arguments against the ban

The past few weeks have seen a flurry of hot takes about social media from UK academics – the vast majority of which condemn the ban along various lines. The consensus appears to be that while the social media industry is undeniably harmful and in need of reform, there is much that is wrong with blunt policy responses that penalise young consumers rather than the tech corporations exploiting them.

These talking points are remarkably similar to Australian academic commentary during 2024 and 2025. For example, experts in both countries working with young people have warned that the ban will millions of young people who have carved out affinity spaces and communities online. This is especially the case for marginalised and minoritised youth – such as young people , or those living in rural areas.

In addition, experts in civics and political education have warned that banning access to social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram cuts teenagers off from key sources of , current affairs and political participation. Similar concerns have been raised by those involved in education.

Elsewhere, digital literacy experts have argued that a social media ban would be a major setback to helping young people learn to engage responsibly with digital technology, while experts in media education have pointed to a likely decline in the passion-led that young people undertake on platforms such as TikTok and YouTube.

Above all, there has been concerted pushback from experts wanting to see real action taken against Big Tech platforms. Banning young people – while failing to properly and forcing changes to product design and platform logics – is little more than a sticking plaster that might even allow tech corporations to increase their market dominance.

‘Banning young people – while failing to properly regulate Big Tech firms and forcing changes to product design and platform logics – is little more than a sticking plaster that might even allow tech corporations to increase their market dominance.’

The wrong side of a very one-sided debate

Just as these current UK academic talking points are all familiar from earlier Australian debates, it also seems likely that any dissenting voices will soon also be following the Australian trend of being largely ignored. Indeed, the idea of ‘banning social media’ appears to have gained unstoppable momentum in the UK – something that politicians are convinced is a clear vote winner and that has the support of , parent groups and various professionals working in youth mental health and wellbeing.

As such, education, media and social science academics in the UK might well soon find that there is marked disinterest in what most have to say on the matter. As was the case in Australia, these are debates informed almost exclusively by ‘evidence’ from the likes of pop-experts such as and , backed-up by vague claims around social media addiction, the dangers of excessive screen time and growing mental health problems.

This lack of openness to dissenting voices was made clear to Australian academics at the opening of a government-run social media summit in October 2024. After inviting dozens of experts to this event, the South Australian premier launched the consultation process by that ‘the science is settled’ – effectively cutting off any room for nuanced discussion. Eighteen months on from the ‘science is settled’ comments, it feels that dissenting academic voices are very much on the losing side of a very one-sided debate.

‘Eighteen months on from the “science is settled” comments, it feels that dissenting academic voices are very much on the losing side of a very one-sided debate.’

So, where does this leave academic critics of the social media ban?

Academics who remain critical of the social media ban in Australia now find themselves at something of a crossroads. There seems to be increasingly less sense in repeating arguments about the wrong-headedness of this ban, even as evidence from the Australian ban already affirms what much of the criticism warns. Most reported suggest that 70 per cent of Australian young people who had social media accounts prior to the ban continue to be using them.

Beyond criticising the obvious shortcomings of the ban, we need to provide clearer alternatives that target the undeniable problems that social media platforms cause. Here it might be worth looking to what is going on in countries other than Australia. Governments in and , for example, are working on legislation that will include far more impactful interventions on Big Tech profits and egregious product designs such as loot-boxes and infinite scroll.

It might also be worth exploring questions of what alternative forms of social media might be possible – in short, what new social media services might be developed that benefit young users while not furthering surveillance capitalism? Indeed, promoting the idea that ‘other social media are possible’ seems a sensible response to the ways that social media has changed over the past 10 years or so. Here, we need to pay attention to longstanding advocates of social media such as danah boyd who have begun to bemoan contemporary social media platforms as ‘’ or ‘’ that are stripped of the empowering qualities that made the original platforms of such benefit for young users.

Academic researchers also need to get to work on generating proper evidence and scrutiny around the impact of these bans – especially for the groups of minoritised and marginalised youth that are likely to be disproportionately affected. We also need to push for some rigorous academic and research that is mindful of the social contexts within which social media is situated.

Yet, perhaps most important is the need to properly listen to – and work with – the young people themselves who are the subjects of these bans, but who have been largely sidelined in the rush to legislate. Indeed, education researchers need to engage with – and learn from – diverse groups of young people to understand what social media means to them: what opportunities they still get from social media despite the ban, how they are encountering and managing risks, and what sorts of guardrails and boundaries put up around social media platforms and the Big Tech firms that profit from them.

With debates around the social media ban in Australia seemingly settled and out-of-mind, this is perhaps the most constructive work that education researchers like us can now engage in – helping push for change from the bottom up. We suspect that this is where UK researchers might soon end up as well. Best get prepared for a long fight!