Occasionally, one has the opportunity to comment on developments across two jurisdictions. The proposed social media ban for under-16s invites reflection on civil liberties, children’s rights, and perceptions of government in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom.
With both the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom mulling banning teens under 16 from social media such as Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and more, this piece warns that the solution to what ails young people is to address the root causes, not pursue crude policies like a ban.
To begin with, for the liberal parties that both Fianna Fáil, one of the current parties of government in the Republic of Ireland, and the United Kingdom’s Liberal Democrats claim to be through their shared membership of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party, this reflexive policy of an online ban for under-16s sets a bad example. What it says to young people is that their lived experience of life online does not matter, and that their civil liberties matter less than those of people over 16. Take the scourge of keeping children safe from online sexual predators, according to the Adults’ Media Use and Attitudes Report issued by Ofcom in 2024, the age group least likely to identify a fake online profile were those aged 65+. This is surely a key digital media skill for keeping children safe from paedophiles, yet nobody is suggesting granny should be banned from social media.
Maybe the answer to these debates is to actually listen to children themselves, something both the United Kingdom and Ireland agreed to as signatories of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 12, which, in its simplest form, says, “I have the right to be listened to and taken seriously.” This is, to be fair to the incumbent Labour government, what it is trying to do, saying so in a recent Gov.UK press release titled “Government to drive action to improve children’s relationship with mobile phones and social media“. If that is so, hopefully, they will consider a book cited by Professor Paul Bernal, Professor of Information Technology Law in the University of East Anglia School of Law. He cites danah boyd’s (danah spells her name without capitalisation) seminal book: “It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens“. This book argues that an online ban will take away an important freedom from vulnerable teens, which is the freedom to shape their own identity, not be viewed through the personal traits bullies use to torment them.
People often talk as though the internet for kids is all about bullying – but it can often be exactly the opposite, a way to escape bullying. If you’re being bullied for your appearance, your ethnicity your name, your family, your poverty, any health condition – this is particularly important for many disabled kids, neurodivergence, sexuality, religion and much more, the internet can help. None of that has to show – you can create a life where the first thing that people see isn’t the thing that the bullies use to target you.
Prof Paul Bernal


Early this morning on GB News I debated a former Tory MP (and the presenter) on why there’s no connection between our leader’s criticism of the present occupant of the White House and the alleged political violence that took place this past weekend -the argument simply doesn’t stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.
Fortunately, it’s not the hope that will kill you, especially in the upper chamber, but there is a high degree of uncertainty in terms of the week ahead.



