White House urges UK not to ban social media for under-16s

[groundloop]

Source: The Guardian

The White House has urged the UK not to impose a social media ban for under-16s, saying such restrictions could impose a “disproportionate” burden on US tech firms.

In a submission to a government consultation on online safety, the US government came out against “prescribed one-size-fits-all government restrictions” and “blunt regulatory instruments” to address online harms to children.

The notice, published by the US embassy in London, added that age-gating for 13- to 16-year-olds would not work. “Technical methods developed to distinguish minors from adults cannot simply be repurposed for younger thresholds,” it said.

Instead, the Trump administration called on the UK to give parents “robust tools” to manage their children’s privacy settings and account controls, as well as requiring platforms to offer a healthy online experience “rather than outright bans”.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/09/white-house-urges-uk-not-ban-social-media-under-16s

[QueerDuck]

1. If Trump is against it... them I'm all for it.

[2naSalit]

2. ...

[QueerDuck]

3. One of my all time favorites! 😂🤣👍️

🍷🍷

[2naSalit]

4. I suspected...

You might like that.

[Grins]

24. From the same people who cheered (after demanding) schools ban cell phones.

During class.

And what right does the U.S. have to tell another nation what their internal policies should be?

[Matthew28]

5. This is one of the few areas

That Donald Trump is right on about. Our first amendment values speech and these bans are against freedom of speech and also makes our children vastly less able to function in a world of tech. We aint going back to the 19th century so we better not be passing laws that enforce such a mindset on our future.

[slightlv]

8. I really want to agree with you... and I appreciate where you're coming from...

but restricting social media in the very early, formative years is not abridging speech, IMO. In fact, even trump in his diatribe isn't talking about restricting it... only having that restriction moved to the parents' obligations, not by default mode. Limiting or even eliminating social media isn't cutting out tech for the kids... tech is so much more than just social media. And doing something like this could even encourage more types of social media that would be geared to younger kids... kinda like "under 21" clubs (although I'm not sure about their reputation anymore). One thing you can be sure of... whatever is done to "help" always ends up getting perverted towards greed and nastiness.

Social media is a bad can of worms for kids, especially the non-blonde, white, well built groups. It has a bad rep towards driving kids to the point of suicide at times. Kids can be, and often are, mean to their peers. I say use this time to help build up resilience by insisting on real socialization among kids. A screen can never be a substitute for one-on-one learning from each other in the social milieu.

In addition, it lessens the dangers of indoctrination of christian nationalism, misogyny, and racism that is rampant across social media. Even adults get addicted to this kind of tech, to their detriment. We don't have to help entire generations to grow more incels.

Leaving it to the parents sounds great on the surface. But the very kids at the most danger will be ones with parents who encourage this kind of anti-social behavior, especially by modeling their own behavior towards others different from them. I just don't think tech is the end-all and be-all of anyone's life, and I made my living at it for over 40 years. I'm still not into social media, other than a small stint on facebook. I did that to stay in touch with family at the time, and I applaud the early emphasis on that function. But it was taken over by racists and haters of all kinds. Even with controls, it was hard to not to keep that stuff away.

We try to protect our children from a lot in their formative years. I just happen to think this may be one of those areas we need to add emphasis to while the tech bros fight over who gets what from whom. I honestly don't believe they've got the best interests of our kids in their hearts. They're too busy trying to take over the world and remake it in their version of a libertarian paradise where it's everyone for themselves.

Like I said, I really want to agree with you because Free Speech is one of our bedrock foundations, and I protest most weekends for it. But not all the freedoms are granted everyone from birth on. Some are even taken away simply because of what gender you happen to be, or lessened because of a myriad of "out group" reasons. It's hard enough to be a kid in today's world, and being a "fat kid" when I was younger, I truly don't want what I went through magnified for kids through social media, by peers or by bots. I want to say "especially the girls"... but boys are learning some very bad ideas and behaviors that end up hurting them, and society, too.

I know your MMV... and I respect that. We're going to have to have a lot of hard talks in the future once we try to rebuild the society trump has torn down. This may well be one of those areas. I hope you can respect my opinions on it as I respect yours, and know that we're all coming from a place of trying to do what's right for all concerned.

[LiberalLovinLug]

21. Thank you for this reply.

i've struggled with this one for awhile. But I've also come to the conclusions that elementary age children should not have access to social media so easily, and the other dark corners of the internet. At least on school property, or guardianship. Learning how to mimic an influencer is not education.

[0rganism]

9. "Freedom of speech" is assessed somewhat differently in the UK

F47's bunch is lobbying against a UK regulation on behalf of the tech oligarchs, their complaint has precious little to do with protected speech and everything to do with protecting techbro profits.

[oberle]

16. The only problem is:

that this is considering a law in the UK, not the USA. They should be able to regulate what they want to regulate, without the USA deciding for them.

[City Lights]

6. Ohhhhh, poor US tech firms!

My heart just bleeds for them! They are so misunderstood! And so unnecessarily burdened!

Please UK, won't you think of US billionaires?!?!?!

[Wonder Why]

7. With Kissin Kousin Eppy gone, the current White House resident needs other ways to recruit those under 16 for his sons.

[Aussie105]

10. Apparently youngsters take social media seriously.

And it can do strange and negative things to their thinking and self image.
Looking for personally valuable things in a minefield of dross.
Too young to have developed any filters or critical thinking skills yet, at a guess.

But the tech firms?
Don't care too much, got to keep their money making systems going!

Australia has banned youngsters from being on social media.
In theory, anyway.
No idea if it makes them go out and play and talk to REAL people more.

But yes, social media - kids are just pawns in their games.

[OC375]

11. Don't care about tech firms' woes. In the end, they'll adapt for a dollar, I'm sure.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

12. Social media isn't healthy for a lot of people.

I've seen Facebook turn many of my parents’ generations’ brains to mush.

[cstanleytech]

13. The real concern is the potential cutting off of the brainwashing of children to accept the status quo.

[snot]

14. Why are the destruction of our speech & privacy rights so favored as solutions of first resort?

The only way this can be implemented is if one or more of the following are required:

You must verify your age by linking your digital devices to your ID.

You must allow the government – or whatever private third-party agency the government employs – access to your devices' data and files at all times.

You must allow third-party software to scan every attempted photo.

Note that these requirements would effectively apply to users everywhere, not just within the UK. Is this really just about protecting children?

Instead of decimating the privacy of every single person who uses the internet, and given the growing consensus regarding the harms to children from unlimited social media use, why not instead simply require phone and computer manufacturers to offer a parental control on phones and computers that enables parents to block access to social media, forums, chat rooms, and the like, while also requiring such platforms to identify themselves in a way that would facilitate such blocking. The control could include a feature allowing parents to designate particular exceptions to the block for sites that the parent trusts, e.g., if there were a school-related forum or chat room.

And I have to think that other approaches are also possible that wouldn't require the wholesale destruction of individual privacy rights; e.g., public education campaigns to make parents and children more aware of dangers, or simply outlawing phones for kids (I grew up just fine without one).

[JustKay]

17. What makes him think the UK is going to listen to him? On ANYTHING!

[Baitball Blogger]

18. This is icky.

[LudwigPastorius]

19. None of your business, asshole.

Quit carrying water for the Tech Broligarchs.

They all hate you anyway.

[Karasu]

20. When the fuck did it become acceptable for them to keep trying to influence policies that affect the EU?

I am getting so fucking sick of this. I can’t believe we’ve let them normalize this shit.

You’d think Kegsbreath’s fascist speech in Normandy would’ve taught them something, but of course not. All they know how to do is double-down.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

22. What a shame if our children were isolated from a constant flood of fascist propaganda.....

... and more.....

The larger question big tech needs to answer is what the hell gave them the right to invade all our private spaces from the very beginning.....

[PSPS]

23. They want to poison the minds of everyone, everywhere! The younger the better!