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 leading doctors. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has made the stark warning in a submission to a government review of social media use amongst under-16s, suggesting that doctors regularly inquire young patients about their device usage and social media consumption. The submission comes as Technology Secretary Liz Kendall announced that fresh regulations to regulate social media for children will be implemented by the end of the year, with a government response to the consultation expected this summer. The government is considering a range of interventions, such as an complete ban comparable to Australia’s latest laws, alongside options such as app curfews and strengthened age verification checks.

Doctors warn social media a serious health threat to the public

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has released a comprehensive set of recommendations to address what it considers a critical public health threat. The organisation is calling for doctors and health service staff to be given guidance on spotting harmful social media use amongst young patients. In its submission to the government consultation, the Academy has drawn attention to the physical and mental health consequences of children being exposed to violent material and damaging content online. The submission emphasises that the rate at which damaging material can get to children—often in a matter of seconds—makes social media uniquely hazardous compared to traditional health risks.

Consultant child psychiatrist Dr Emily Sehmer has outlined the dangers of excessive social media usage as “much, much worse” than smoking, given how rapidly damaging material can be reached by younger people. She stressed that the problem is affecting progressively younger demographics, making action critical. Dr Sehmer has emphasised the importance of health professionals adopting a non-judgmental stance when discussing social media use with young patients. The Academy is also recommending that potential harms from social media be formally recorded in medical settings, helping to fill a significant gap in data about the true scale and nature of the problem.

• Evening access restrictions to reduce usage in high-risk periods
• Removing auto-play functionality and infinite scroll features on platforms
• Stronger age verification and authentication measures for platform members
• Medical professionals education on identifying problematic platform usage

Public consultation draws record responses on possible limitations

The government’s consultation on online platform usage among young people under 16 has sparked unprecedented public engagement, with 70,000 responses submitted from charities, campaign groups and members of the public. This substantial response reflects widespread concern about the effect of social platforms on the wellbeing of young people. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall has stressed the government’s commitment to implementing change, noting that fresh interventions will be introduced by the year’s end. The consultation, which concludes at the close of Tuesday, has sought views on whether an outright ban—similar to Australia’s latest laws—or alternative interventions would be most successful.

Kendall has emphasized that the government is evaluating a wide range of issues and features affecting young people’s digital protection, delivering a comprehensive approach to the issue. The dialogue phase has been notably open, deliberately soliciting input from all stakeholders to shape policy decisions. The government’s scope extends further than platforms subject to Australia’s restrictions, with particular attention being given to platforms like Roblox and Discord. Officials have suggested that the consultation outcomes will be released in summer, followed by the deployment of chosen measures by year’s end.

Measures being considered under review

• Complete prohibition on social networking use for young people below age 16 years old
• Required night-time restrictions blocking access during late evening and early morning periods
• Removing recommendation functions such as auto-play and endless scroll functionality
• Strengthened age checking and identity checks deployed across all social media platforms
• Compulsory parental monitoring tools and monitoring features integrated into social applications

The government has already started trialling certain proposed interventions in selected UK households since March, gathering real-world data about their viability and effectiveness. These test initiatives have assessed how approaches like app curfews and enhanced age verification might operate in real-world settings. By trialling these approaches before full implementation, policymakers seek to ensure that any measures imposed are equally practical and genuinely beneficial for young people’s safety and welfare online.

Campaigning bodies split between complete prohibition against focused controls

The engagement exercise has uncovered a clear split amongst campaigners and advocacy groups regarding the most practical method to safeguarding young people against social media harms. Whilst some groups champion an complete prohibition similar to Australia’s landmark legislation, others contend that more nuanced, targeted interventions would be more workable and long-lasting. This core dispute reflects broader uncertainty within the child protection sector about whether a ban represents the most proportionate response, or whether other options might deliver similar outcomes with reduced negative side effects.

The conversation has intensified as the government gets ready to unveil its response to the consultation’s 70,000 submissions. Campaign groups and charities have presented rival proposals for how best to safeguard young people, with some stressing the need for decisive action and others raising concerns over overly restrictive measures. This variety of perspectives demonstrates the complexity of formulating policy in an area where expert consensus remains hard to pin down and where different stakeholders place importance on different aspects of child wellbeing and digital freedom.

Arguments for extensive restrictions

Supporters for a complete prohibition contend that online social platforms create such substantial dangers to young people’s psychological and physical health that prohibition represents the only genuinely protective step. They argue that the pace at which young people can access harmful content—from extreme violence to abusive content—renders selective regulation insufficient. Supporters of this approach reference Australia’s decisive legislative action as demonstration that total bans are feasible and vital, particularly given the habit-forming design elements intentionally designed into online platforms to maximise engagement levels and time spent.

Issues with how well bans work

Critics of a complete prohibition raise practical concerns about enforceability and unintended consequences. They question whether a ban would effectively stop teenagers from gaining access to social media through alternative means, possibly pushing usage underground where it becomes harder to monitor. Some campaigners worry that a comprehensive ban could backfire, pushing teenagers towards less regulated platforms or resulting in a generation excluded from digital environments where their peers interact. These bodies propose instead specific interventions focusing on specific harms whilst maintaining young people’s capacity to engage in online communities.

Technology industry responses and enforcement challenges on the horizon

Technology companies have largely remained cautious in their public responses to the government’s consultation, with many pledging to strengthen age verification systems and introduce parental safeguards rather than endorsing complete prohibitions. Major platforms including Meta, TikTok and YouTube have submitted their own proposals, emphasising current safety measures and arguing that nuanced regulation targeting particular risks would be more successful than sweeping bans. Industry representatives contend that carefully constructed limitations on features such as endless scrolling and algorithm-driven suggestions could reduce dangers whilst preserving the social and creative advantages these platforms offer young users. However, critics question whether self-regulatory approaches from companies with substantial financial motivation to maximise engagement can sufficiently safeguard vulnerable users.

Enforcement constitutes a formidable challenge regardless of which regulatory approach the government eventually implements. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall noted that any measures put forward before year’s end would should be robust enough to survive legal scrutiny and show results in practice. International precedent indicates that implementing age restrictions at scale requires advanced verification technology that reconcile child protection with privacy concerns. The government’s consideration of services beyond those subject to Australia’s ban—including Roblox and Discord—indicates recognition that a holistic strategy needs to cover the entire range of services young people genuinely use, not merely the largest social networks.

The administration’s summer response to the public inquiry will probably reveal whether government officials support the Australian approach of age-based prohibition or a more granular regulatory framework. Kendall’s insistence that “we’ve got to make this work properly, and we’ve got to ensure it endures” suggests policymakers understand the importance at stake—any policies introduced must survive both technological innovation and possible legal obstacles whilst genuinely improving the safety of young people without unintentionally driving them towards less regulated alternatives.