British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced a sweeping ban on social media use for children under the age of 16. The government stated the measures aim to protect children’s mental and physical health from the risks of excessive online use. The ban will apply to major platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Threads, and Reddit. While the government intends to include these platforms, it stated there is no intention to include messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal. The UK government described the move as a “landmark” and “world-leading” action. According to reports from The Sunday Times, the UK will adopt an “Australia-plus” model, which extends beyond Australia’s existing prohibition by also encompassing restrictions on romantic or sexual AI chatbots and blocking children from communicating with strangers on gaming platforms. Also, the ban will include blocks on functions such as livestreaming. While some reports suggest the government is weighing social media curfews for older teenagers to prevent “late-night scrolling,” Starmer did not confirm specific details for a curfew during his announcement. The decision follows a national consultation that received more than 116,000 responses, making it the second-largest on record for the UK. According to the consultation results, 90% of parents supported a minimum age of 16, and 83% stated that the risks of social media outweigh the benefits. The government plans to bring the measures to Parliament before Christmas, with protections expected to come into force in the spring of 2027. The announcement has drawn mixed reactions. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children praised the ambition but urged for strong age checks. Conversely, a YouTube spokesperson warned that a blanket restriction could push children toward less-safe services, while the rights organization ARTICLE 19 expressed doubts, suggesting risks stem from platform design rather than just children being online. The U.S. Embassy in London expressed concern that the regulations could place burdens on American companies and suggested they should be narrow to avoid violating free speech.