Under 16 app bans – holding youngsters back or propelling them forward?

Reduced early exposure to high-risk platforms

Young people may spend less time on mainstream social platforms at early ages which could, in turn, reduce exposure to harmful content and addictive patterns, often a goal of the policies. 

However, less engagement with social media does not necessarily equate to less familiarity with digital technology overall. Many tech literacies come from a broader set of digital tools including search engines, educational apps, productivity software, and coding platforms. 

The risk also exists that with a ban focused only on access to specific apps, youngsters may adopt alternative strategies such as presenting fake ages, using ID from an older person, alternative apps or VPNs to circumvent the bans. Remember, the bans target the very generation often tech literate from an early age. However, with bans in place, this issue should reduce over time for subsequent cohorts.
 

The timing of skills development might move

Delaying exposure until 16 could mean that critical digital skills are acquired later, potentially affecting comfort with online communication, digital collaboration, personal branding, community-building, and basic digital self-representation. 

Social media and online platforms are often informal environments where young people can learn networking, content creation, group collaboration, and digital marketing skills. 

Delaying access could lead to a compressed window of opportunity to build these skills and familiarities before adulthood, which may disadvantage some youngsters relative to peers who self-teach or use alternative tools outside the regulatory net. 

However, schools and structured programmes could step in with more digital education if personal access is limited, potentially leading to a greater and safer amount of digital literacy learning opportunities. 

The latter could be beneficial for technical skills development provided educational systems and families properly and robustly support these alternatives.
 

Fragmented digital literacy and inequalities

There is some risk of digital fragmentation and division. Privileged youngsters might find ways around restrictions or have greater access to digital learning resources. 

Underprivileged youngsters could fall further behind if bans are not paired with formal digital education in schools and community programmes, leading to a potential narrowing of their future competitiveness in tech-focused careers. This mirrors concerns in other policy areas where regulatory restrictions without compensatory education widen inequalities. 
 

Career pathways and industry impact

The tech and digital sector values practical familiarity, although not necessarily social media expertise per se. Many jobs require skills learned through formal education, projects, internships, and structured learning rather than early social networking experience. 

Delaying social media use is unlikely to directly reduce access to coding skills, data analysis, cybersecurity, and AI development which are typically learned through courses, mentorships and dedicated tools.

Education versus restriction

History suggests that bans alone are rarely sufficient and could lead to unintended consequences such as migration to unregulated platforms or reliance on evasion tactics rather than understanding safe use. 

Comprehensive digital literacy programmes may be more effective at preparing youngsters for careers in technology, while also addressing safety concerns but these outcomes depend entirely on the degree to which the education sector and developers embrace the opportunity that the selective social media platform ban presents. 

This is probably the most important opportunity that the bans and potential bans offer: an opportunity to escalate and benefit from upscaled educational support and engaging learning environments, benefitting not only individuals but the wider educational sector and each ban-introducing country as a whole. 

Positive outcomes from bans will include safer early online environments, potential for structured digital education to grow, and less time being wasted on addictive applications, with more time spent on creative tools. 

Conversely, negative risks from bans might include delayed informal learning of digital communication tools, uneven skills development tied to school quality and family engagement, and possible migration to unregulated spaces that still shape online behaviour. 

In our opinion, it is unlikely that bans will automatically reduce overall digital literacy or interest in digital and technology careers. However, they may alter how and where youngsters learn about digital tools. If policymakers link restrictions with proactive education on safe, productive technology platforms and access to rich digital learning environments, the bans could reduce harmful impacts while potentially developing a generation that is both safer and more intentional in its tech and digital expertise. These bans and proposed bans could represent both an enormous opportunity, and obligation, for the educational sector.