Government plans to ban social media for under-16s has attracted the criticism of rights groups and anti-surveillance bodies who argue the move could violate privacy for everyone, and even push under-16s to less regulated platforms.

Big Brother Watch commented on the ban’s move towards increased government surveillance. Head of Advocacy, Jack Coulson, said on Monday that this ban will not be ‘like Challenge 25 for alcohol’, but rather that all users will now face more ‘papers, please demand to get online.’ The charity has also criticised the ban’s potential to ‘force the public’ to trust their IDs to companies with ‘a serious track record of leaks and hacks.’ One instance occurred in October of 2025, when Discord confirmed that hackers had gained access to 70,000 government ID images from an age verification platform.

Silkie Carlo, Director of Big Brother Watch, said: ‘This will be remembered as the beginning of ID checkpoints for the internet.’

Social media firms have raised concerns surrounding the ban, specifically regarding the role it may play in pushing children to ‘less safe’ platforms. YouTube’s spokesperson criticised the ban, stating that a ‘blanket ban’ will force kids from ‘curated supervised, beneficial experiences and towards anonymous, less-safe services.’ A report from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner in Scotland published in early June said that a ‘blanket restriction’ does little to ‘address underlying issues’ such as ‘exploitative algorithms’ that are still present on other platforms.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the ban is not something he will present as ‘cost-free’, because he considers claiming social media has brought no benefits is ‘wrong’. However, he said that ‘government is always about choices, and it’s clear to me that a total ban is the right choice.’