Medical leaders warn social media poses smoking-level health risk to youth

Social media presents a health risk to young people similar to smoking, as stated by the UK’s most senior doctors. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has issued the stark warning in a submission to a government review of social media use among under-16s, recommending that doctors regularly inquire young patients about their device usage and social media consumption. The submission comes as Technology Secretary Liz Kendall confirmed that new measures to regulate social media for children will be introduced by the year’s end, with a government response to the consultation expected this summer. The government is exploring a range of interventions, including an full prohibition comparable to Australia’s recent legislation, alongside options such as app curfews and enhanced age verification checks.

Doctors declare social media a significant public health concern

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has issued a detailed range of recommendations to tackle what it considers a serious public health threat. The organisation is advocating for doctors and medical practitioners to be equipped with guidance on recognising inappropriate or unhealthy social media use amongst young patients. In its submission to the government consultation, the Academy has drawn attention to the health and wellbeing consequences of children being exposed to violent material and damaging content online. The submission underscores that the pace with which damaging material can get to children—often within seconds—makes social media uniquely hazardous compared to traditional health risks.

Consultant child psychiatrist Dr Emily Sehmer has characterised the dangers of excessive social media usage as “much, much worse” than smoking, given how quickly damaging material can be accessed by young users. She emphasised that the problem is affecting increasingly younger age groups, making action pressing. Dr Sehmer has emphasised the importance of health professionals taking a non-judgemental approach when discussing social media use with young patients. The Academy is also recommending that possible risks from social media be officially documented in medical settings, addressing a notable shortfall in information on the actual extent and nature of the problem.

• Evening access restrictions to limit access in high-risk periods
• Removing auto-play functionality and endless scrolling features on digital services
• Stronger age verification and verification processes for account holders
• Healthcare staff instruction on identifying excessive screen time habits

Public consultation draws record responses on possible limitations

The government’s review on online platform usage among young people under 16 has sparked unprecedented public engagement, with 70,000 submissions received from charities, campaign groups and members of the public. This substantial response demonstrates widespread concern about the effect of online services on young people’s wellbeing. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall has emphasised the government’s commitment to taking action, noting that fresh interventions will be implemented by the year’s end. The consultation, which concludes at the close of Tuesday, has gathered views on whether an complete prohibition—comparable with Australia’s recent legislation—or other approaches would be most successful.

Kendall has emphasized that the government is examining a broad spectrum of matters and considerations affecting kids’ internet security, delivering a complete framework to the problem. The engagement process has been notably participatory, actively seeking input from key stakeholders to guide policy decisions. The government’s remit extends beyond platforms included in Australia’s restrictions, with particular attention being given to applications such as Roblox and Discord. Officials have suggested that the consultation outcomes will be published over the summer months, followed by the deployment of chosen measures by year’s end.

Measures being considered under review

• Complete ban on social networking access for children under age 16 years of age
• Mandatory evening curfews preventing access during evening and early morning periods
• Turning off recommendation features such as auto-play and endless scroll functionality
• Enhanced age checking and user identity checks rolled out throughout all platforms
• Required parental monitoring tools and oversight features embedded in social applications

The government has already begun trialling certain proposed interventions in specific UK households from March onwards, gathering tangible insights about their effectiveness and feasibility. These test initiatives have assessed how approaches like app curfews and improved age verification might operate in practical contexts. By testing these approaches prior to full implementation, policymakers aim to ensure that any restrictions introduced are both practical and genuinely advantageous for young people’s safety and welfare online.

Campaign groups split between complete prohibition versus targeted regulation

The engagement exercise has revealed a clear split amongst campaign organisations and advocacy bodies concerning the most effective approach to protecting young people from online harms. Whilst some organisations advocate for an outright ban similar to Australia’s landmark legislation, others argue that more nuanced, targeted interventions would prove more practical and sustainable. This fundamental disagreement demonstrates wider doubt within the child safety community about whether a ban represents the most proportionate response, or whether alternative measures might achieve comparable benefits with fewer unintended consequences.

The debate has intensified as the government gets ready to unveil its answer to the consultation’s 70,000 submissions. Campaign groups and charities have submitted rival proposals for how most effectively to protect young people, with some stressing the need for decisive action and others warning against unduly limiting measures. This diversity of opinion demonstrates the difficulty in developing policy in an area where research agreement remains elusive and where different stakeholders place importance on different aspects of young people’s welfare and digital freedom.

Arguments for extensive restrictions

Supporters for an outright ban contend that social media sites pose such considerable threats to young people’s physical and mental health that a ban constitutes the only truly protective action. They assert that the pace at which kids can come across harmful content—from violent content to abusive content—renders targeted regulation insufficient. Supporters of this approach cite Australia’s decisive legislative action as demonstration that comprehensive bans are feasible and vital, particularly given the compulsive design characteristics purposefully built into online platforms to boost engagement levels and time spent.

Doubts over how well bans work

Detractors of an outright ban raise practical concerns about enforceability and unintended consequences. They question whether prohibition would effectively prevent young people from accessing social platforms through other methods, possibly pushing usage underground where it becomes more difficult to monitor. Some campaigners fear that a outright ban might be counterproductive, pushing teenagers towards poorly regulated platforms or resulting in a generation excluded from online spaces where their peers interact. These organisations support instead targeted interventions addressing specific harms whilst protecting young people’s ability to engage in internet communities.

Tech sector reactions to regulatory hurdles on the horizon

Technology companies have generally stayed cautious in their public responses to the government’s consultation, with many pledging to improve age verification mechanisms and implement parental controls rather than endorsing outright bans. Major platforms including Meta, TikTok and YouTube have put forward their own recommendations, emphasising existing safety features and arguing that nuanced regulation targeting particular risks would be more successful than blanket prohibitions. Industry representatives contend that well-designed restrictions on features such as infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations could reduce dangers whilst preserving the social and creative benefits these platforms offer young users. However, critics challenge whether voluntary measures from companies with significant financial incentives to maximise engagement can sufficiently safeguard at-risk users.

Enforcement forms a significant obstacle irrespective of which regulatory model the government ultimately adopts. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall acknowledged that any measures introduced before year’s end would must be resilient enough to resist legal challenges and demonstrate effectiveness when implemented. International precedent demonstrates that introducing age verification across platforms requires advanced verification technology that manage child protection alongside privacy considerations. The government’s consideration of applications beyond those included in Australia’s ban—including Roblox and Discord—suggests awareness that a comprehensive approach must address the full spectrum of services young people actually use, not merely the most prominent social networks.

The government’s response during summer to the public inquiry will likely demonstrate whether ministers favour the Australian approach of age-restricted bans or a more granular regulatory structure. Kendall’s assertion that “we’ve got to make this work properly, and we’ve got to make it last” indicates policymakers understand the importance at stake—any policies introduced must survive both technical advancement and potential legal obstacles whilst genuinely improving young people’s safety without unintentionally driving them towards less regulated alternatives.