Tangle - The UK’s social media ban for minors.

Episode Date: June 17, 2026

On Monday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that in 2027, the United Kingdom will ban children under 16 from accessing major social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, X, and YouTube (but not YouTube Kids). Several other countries have passed similar bans, but the UK’s measure will go further, blocking features like live-streaming and communicating with strangers while gaming. Furthermore, Starmer said the regulations will restrict access to artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots designed to simulate romantic or sexual relationships for users under 18 and may also impose curfews on social media use for under-18s.Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠ and today’s “Under the radar” story ⁠here⁠ and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: Will social media bans be effective? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast written by: Ari Weitzman and audio edited and mixed by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of RR take. I'm your host for today, Tangle's managing editor, Ari Weitzman, and I've got a question for you. Where were you on the night of June 16th, 2026? And no, you don't need to get a lawyer.

you're not compelled by law to answer, but if you weren't watching Argentina play Algeria in the World Cup last night, you will have to answer to yourself. Soccer's the biggest sport in the history of the world. This year's World Cup is the biggest tournament in the history of the sport, and one of the game's all-time grades just turned in a performance for the record books last night. Lionel Messi recorded a hat trick in Argentina's 3-0 win over Algeria, and he also had another goal called back for being outside, and he gave Patrick Mahomes a show in his own house. in Kansas City. Messy will turn 39 next week, making him exactly one month older than your humble podcast host for today, where we're going to be talking about the ban on smartphones

in the UK, as well as other bands across the world, and just in general, whether or not we should be doing bands like this at all. We're also going to be turning back the clock with features on one of the wonders of the world and return of supersonic planes. So I'm going to turn it over to our associate editor, Audrey Moorhead, who's going to introduce today's topic. Give us what the left and right are saying, and I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Ari. First up, I have today's quick hits. Number one, Iranian foreign minister Abbas Arakchi said that the agreement to end the U.S. Iran War requires Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. Israel has said it will not accept that

condition. Separately, the Wall Street Journal reported that the deal will allow Iran to immediately begin selling oil and fuel. U.S. officials have also indicated that Iran will have access to a $300 billion fund to help rebuild the country if they meet certain provisions in the deal. Number two. President Donald Trump said he will delay the confirmation hearing of Jay Clayton as Director of National Intelligence, prioritize confirming Clayton's replacement for U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. The delay could impact the Senate's efforts to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which lawmakers from both parties have refused to support

until acting DNI Bill Pulte is replaced. Number three, Republican Representative Mike Collins of Georgia, endorsed by President Trump, advanced in the Republican runoff for Georgia Senate, and will face Democratic incumbent Senator John Ossuff in the general election. Businessman Rick Jackson defeated Trump-backed Lieutenant Governor Bert Jones in the state's Republican gubernatorial runoff. Jackson will face former Atlanta mayor, Keisha L.

Bottoms, a Democrat in the general election. Separately, Trump-backed Republican Representative Barry Moore, won Alabama's Republican Senate primary runoff in the race to succeed Senator Tommy Tuberville. Number four. The Education Department announced that it will move offices overseeing special education services and civil rights out of its purview, transferring their work to the Department and Human Services and the Justice Department, respectively. Number five. A federal judge temporarily blocked an Idaho law that bars transgender people from using bathrooms that do not correspond with their sex,

finding that the law is likely unconstitutional. Idaho's Republican Attorney General Raul Labrador said he will appeal the ruling. I know in the future it will have a positive impact on young people's lives in their mental health. I think the issue is right now is the lack of guidance from parents. So I really think it should be the parents' responsibility to guide us. children. It maybe shouldn't have been banned. Maybe it should be more restricted so you can't talk to people that you don't know or just people that aren't very nice. I personally think that it's the parent's responsibility to decide whether the children are immature enough or whatever social media

apps that they're asking for and a complete ban is a bit like authoritative and unnecessary. On Monday, British Prime Minister Kier Starmor announced that in 27, the United Kingdom will ban children under 16 from accessing major social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, X, and YouTube, though not YouTube kids. Several other countries have passed similar bans, but the UK's measure will go further, blocking features like live streaming and communicating with strangers while gaming. Furthermore, Starmor said the regulations will restrict access to artificial intelligence chatbots designed to simulate romantic or sexual relationships for users under 18, and may also impose curfews on social media use for under 18s.

For some context, in December 2025, Australia implemented a social media ban for children under 16, becoming the first country to impose restrictions for minors. Malaysia, Spain, France, Austria, Greece, Denmark, and Indonesia have now also announced or implemented social media bans for select platforms. In the United States, Congress has not taken up legislation to enact similar restrictions, though in 2025, a bipartisan group of senators introduced the kids' off social media act, which would prevent American children under 13 from making social media accounts. The bill has not been voted on. As of late 2025, several U.S. states had enacted social media bans for

minors or laws requiring parental consent for minors to operate social media accounts, though many of those laws were later blocked by courts. Several other states are currently considering bans. In a substack post on Monday, Starrmer wrote, I am simply not prepared to be a bystander when the safety and happiness of our children are at stake. Of course, some children will find a technological workaround, but that doesn't mean we should not take this step or that it won't make a difference. The UK Parliament passed the Children's Well-Being and Schools Act in April, which allows it to create targeted rules like this social media ban without needing to pass further legislation. To enforce the restrictions, the UK plans to impose fines on companies that fail to comply with the law,

and Starmor hopes to put those regulations into effect by the spring of 2027. Some experts have question the efficacy of such bans. John Crowcroft, a communication systems professor at the University of Cambridge, said, there is a real risk this will drive some users to worse sites, and policing devices is close to impossible technically. Others have noted the limited initial impacts of Australia's ban. In March, Australia's internet regulator published a poll that showed 70% of parents said their children still access social media platforms. The United States Embassy in the UK also published a notice on June 5th, opposing the UK's ban. Today, we'll explore perspectives on social media bans from the right, left, and British

writers. Then, managing editor Ari We'll give his take. We'll be right back after this quick break. First up, what the right is saying. The right is mixed on the ban, with some suggesting it will be ineffective. Others say Britain is taking necessary action. In reason, Ream Ibrahim wrote the evidence suggests bans won't work. Regardless of how the ban will be enforced, one thing is certain. It will come at the

expense of the privacy of all British internet users. The government cannot ban children from social media without asking everyone else to prove they are not children. Ofcom, Britain's communications regulator, says in its own guidance under the Online Safety Act that age checks can include facial age estimation, open banking, digital identity services, credit card checks, email-based age estimation, mobile network checks, and photo ID matching. The government's plan appears to have been designed by people with very little understanding of how teenagers actually use the internet. As one survey of Europeans aged 13 to 18 found, 74% of teenagers on average said they watched videos on YouTube to learn something new for school, and 71% on average watched videos on YouTube

to learn something new for fun or outside of school. Social media is also used to stay in touch with friends and family. A majority of both girls at 71% and boys at 60% see being online as good for helping to build and maintain friendships. In the daily caller, John Loftus said Britain made a good call for once. Britain is famous for its nanny state rules, which include extremely strict anti-smoking rules and high sin taxes and a sugar levy to curb alcohol consumption and lower obesity rates.

The current government is also pro-censorship, and more generally, Britain does not have an enshrined First Amendment as we do in the States. But Starmor's decision to ban social media for children is nevertheless the right move. No one in their right mind believes it's healthy for a 10-year-old girl to be doom-scrolling on TikTok every minute of the day. It's almost like giving a child cigarettes. A study published in 2025 found that social media and smartphone addiction among kids is linked to a higher risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

Another study found that nearly half of kids, aged 13 to 17, said social media made them feel worse about their bodies. Yet there is certainly a political calculation. The policy appears popular in Britain, and Starmer could desperately use a win. It could also be a middle finger to American CEOs and big tech companies. Next up, what the left is saying. The left is also mixed on the bans, with some saying regulation is a better option. Others note that restrictions on different addictive products have been, ineffective. In the Los Angeles Times, Jessica L. Schleider argued, if social platforms are harmful,

don't just ban kids, regulate the harms. These bans are politically attractive. They are simple, signal action, and promise protection without requiring the nuanced, slow, and logistically complex work of regulating trillion-dollar companies. But blunt-force bans are the wrong response to this moment. Bans without systemic oversight are worse than ineffective. They are a form of policy abdication. They kick the can down the road, shift responsibility. away from technology companies and give up on the far harder task of making online spaces genuinely safer for the millions of young people who already use them every day and will likely continue to do so. Across large studies, the association between overall time spent on social media and

mental health outcomes is often small or inconsistent. What matters far more than screen time alone is what young people encounter online, how content is delivered, and whether platforms are structured to support or undermine user's well-being. Responding to that reality, with bans aimed at youth access rather than regulation of platform design is a profound misalignment of responsibility. It places the burden of safety on adolescents and families, while leaving the systems that generate harm intact. In the Atlantic,

Keith Humphreys and Jonathan Calkin suggested a social media ban really could do a lot of good. The long experience of governments trying to restrict young people's access to temptation goods of other kinds, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, justifies cautious optimism. The ban might deliver some truly valuable benefits, letting useful missteps remain local and ephemeral, rather than searing permanent brands onto developing psyches, and giving young people

more time to develop the in-person social skills and connections that make life meaningful. Positive outcomes from raising the minimum legal age for addictive substances do not guarantee success for imposing minimum legal ages on social media accounts. Consuming alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis requires the acquisition of a physical object. This creates regulatory checkpoints that are hard to replicate online. However, in other respects, banning access to social media may be easier. Many teens appear to want to be off social media. They see it as detrimental to their own well-being,

but nevertheless feel like they have to be on it to keep up with their peers. A ban might solve this collective action problem. Finally, what UK writers are saying? Some British writers see the ban as government overkill. Others say Starmor was right to pursue bold action to address a pressing. issue. In The Spectator, Andrew Tettinborn called Britain's ban, stupid and unenforceable. The responsibility for supervising what children read and see should lie squarely with parents, who, after all, can dictate the internet set up in their homes and choose which, if any,

smartphones to give their offspring. The government could have subtly reinforced this idea. For instance, by requiring that all phones and routers sold have parental control set to on by default, only changeable by the account holder. The idea that this is something for the state and its none too subtle mega agency of com sends an unfortunate message. There is much wholesome educational content on YouTube, reigning from maths to history to current affairs. Schools indeed increasingly encouraged the young to draw on it for the purposes of homework and further study. Again, teenagers often have a keen interest in computing, and for this, Reddit is one of the best sources, but no dice. Whatever Kirstarmer says, there are big questions over whether any of this is actually

enforceable, something the Australians who brought in a similar ban a short time ago have already found out. Children can and undoubtedly will importune friends or elder siblings over 16 to lend them their phones or tablets, which at a stroke defeats the object. The Guardian editorial board praised the UK's new, tougher approach to child safety. How people feel about this depends to some extent on their attitude to big tech. Age verification is controversial because it could carry implications for adults as well, depending on how it is implemented. Last week, Sir Kier-Starmer committed to compulsory nudity detection on all devices if Apple and Google do not come up with a software fix to protect children by September.

There are legitimate fears that data protection laws may not be sufficient to protect privacy if users are required to upload documents to prove who they are. But if much remains unclear, this week's gear shift is still welcome. For too long, tech companies have used their market power to dictate terms. Sir Kear's move represents a belated recognition that while these businesses have changed the world in ways that many people appreciate, their overarching goal of maximizing engagement with their products is not aligned with human flourishing, and too frequently undermines it. That's it for what the right, left, and UK writers are saying. Next, I'll pass it back off to Ari for his take, and you'll see me again for my dissent.

A natural reaction when learning about a substance or behavior that has been shown to be harmful is to want the government to ban it. I understand the impulse. If studies show that something is bad for you, then why should it be legal? But I also think jumping straight to outright bans is an unimaginative solution, and it's one that's prone to failure, it sometimes backfires, and it can create bigger problems than what were associated with the thing that government just made illegal. Policy is hard. Social media use has been very convincingly demonstrated to have negative impacts on minors. I think that's something we can all agree to. A 2025 review of 57 studies across 21 countries found that daily social media use is associated with increased stress, anxiety, depression,

loneliness, and poor sleep quality. As much as 40% of depressed youth reported high levels of social media use and spending three or more hours on social media per day has been associated with elevated risks of self-harm. Smartphone usage even negatively affect. the cervical spine, eyes, and sleep quality. Any reasonable person would want to limit those harms, but it doesn't follow that the best solution is banning every social media app for minors. I'd like to try and exercise with you. I'm going to give you the stats for three different risk factors. Without knowing what specific risk factors these are, what do you think the appropriate government response to these factors would be? Should they be banned for everyone?

made unavailable or illegal for minors only, or just be left up to every individual to self-manage. Let's start with factor A. As of 2024, 228 million Americans, age 12 and older, have engaged in behavior associated with factor A, and 27 million adults have a disordered relationship with it. 50 to 70% of people with a disordered relationship to factor A also have a psychiatric disorder at some point in their lives, like depression, anxiety, or suicidality.

And 83% have some kind of physical disorder, like hypertension, asthma, or high cholesterol. In a given month, 48% of young adults 18 to 25 will have engaged in this behavior, which is associated with the deaths of 4,300 individuals under the age of 21 every year. Even limited exposure to factor A can severely impact an adolescence development. Now, factor B. Based on a 2024 study, 61% of North American adults engaged in this behavior, and 13.8% did so to a risky degree, often associated with a disorder. If a person develops a disorder with factor B,

they have an 82% chance of a co-occurring mental disorder, like substance abuse, mood, or personality disorders. And they have a 27% chance of a physical disorder, such as respiratory or endocrine disorders. Among minors, between 4 and 8% participated in this behavior in 2024, and 15% of those who did have a risky usage rate. 68% of youth, with a disordered relationship to factor B, also have a psychiatric disorder, and 20% have attempted suicide. Since 2024, access to and usage of Factor B has increased.

And now finally, Factor C. Roughly one third of all U.S. adults participate in behavior associated with Factor C, which has an associated 6 to 15% increase in mortality. 46% of people engage in this behavior report lower than average mental health scores, and the behavior has a 48% increased risk of heart. disease and 50% increased risk of obesity. In 2024, 60 to 70% of teenagers engaged in disordered behavior with Factor C, which has been causally linked to poor brain development and heightened anxiety, stress, and depression, and has a higher associated risk of diabetes.

A 2025 study has also implicated Factor C in 21% of all fatal car crashes, while another study from the same year has linked Factor C to an elevated risk. risk of cancer. I'll ask again, what should the government's policies be towards these risk factors? Really take a second to consider it. Maybe you think the best policy is to just make them totally illegal. And for a long time, that was the U.S. policy regarding online gambling or factor B. The Federal Wire Act of 1961 prohibited interstate transmission of bets and wages by wire. and in 2006, Congress made it illegal for companies to knowingly process funds one through online gambling with the unlawful internet gambling enforcement act. However, that same act also created a specific carve-out

for fantasy sports that, quote, reflect the relative knowledge and skill of the participants, and quote, that led to a boom in one-day fantasy leagues, which led to the proliferation of online sports betting, which, along with a major Supreme Court ruling, led to legalization in many states, in essence, a sensible attempt to create carve-outs for what at the time were pretty benign and friendly use cases ended up inviting companies to explore loopholes, which became so common that much of the regulation

was reduced to a farce. And I know the rebuttal. That's a problem we should fix with sports betting, not one we're doomed to recreate with social media. But social media restrictions still face the same problem online gambling faced. How do you define the problem? Australia's ban on social media also extends to YouTube, which means that kids can't have accounts, but it doesn't mean they can't go to the website. Now, kids are watching videos without signing in, making it harder for parents to control their

child's usage. Sites like Reddit and X don't require a login of view posts either. How can these sites be made 100% inaccessible by law without it becoming state censorship? Maybe you think the best policy is to try to agegate social media. That's essentially what our country's stance is with alcohol, or factor A. And yet, kids still access and consume alcohol. And that's a physical substance. Think of how much harder it is to create a law to agegate a web application. Even without creating accounts,

kids with access to smartphones will still find websites where they can scroll mindlessly, like they're already doing in Australia. Solving this problem isn't as easy as individual's states banning porn websites for everyone. As Reim Ebergen wrote in Reason, under what the right is saying, it's hard to imagine an effective age restriction that doesn't effectively apply to everybody. Without age-gating, maybe you think that the best policy is really no policy, but the government shouldn't be involved at all and social media you should be left up entirely to the individual. That's the government's approach to sleep deprivation, which is factor C.

And that makes sense intuitively. You wouldn't want the government to mandate a bedtime. and then be faced with the unseemly question of how to enforce it, even if this is the most prevalent of all the problems that we talked about today. But here, the government's lack of any stance or policy at all actually exacerbates this issue. Schools that push their start times back show increased sleep for students, better academic performance, and improved well-being, and yet, most public schools still start between 7.30 and 8.30 a.m. So no policy isn't necessarily a good policy either.

That principle applies to other examples too. States where online sports spending is legal have 25 to 30% more bankruptcies and binge drinking is higher in countries where the drinking age is lower. Clearly, some level of government control makes a difference. Again, policy is hard. In an ideal world, I'd like to see families be better equipped to manage social media usage on their own, like a federal law requiring age restrictions and parental controls, which Congress has already tried and failed to pass. I'd also like our cultural norms regarding public phone usage to change.

And some people, like my personal favorite, modern singer-songwriter Phoebe Bridgers, are already banning phones from their concerts. And just to zoom out, describing how I think that cultural shift should unfold would take another 4,000 words at minimum. So for today, I'll just say, I'm very skeptical that government bans

will help us get to a place where we're minimizing these harms. That's it for my take. So I'm going to pass it back over to Audrey for the rest of the podcast, including her staff dissent. Thanks, Ari. I'm back with a staff dissent. By and large, I agree with Ari

that a government ban on social media is not ideal. However, I have to ask, how can we expect the mass cultural change that Ari and I both want to see without some external pressure? The natural human impulse is to chase pleasure and convenience and avoid pain, so much so that philosophers have long theorized about how to use external institutions,

often religious ones, to curb certain pleasurable impulses in order to create a well-ordered society. But in a pluralistic society like the U.S., religious pressures don't carry cultural weight, leaving us with government intervention as the most plausible path. This can work both ways, creating both greater acceptance and greater restriction of behaviors, Meaningful adoption of seatbelts and reduction in inebriated driving only occurred after states instituted laws mandating safer driving practices. On the flip side, meaningful social acceptance of integration and gay marriage both only occurred after federal intervention.

As much as I am resistant to government intervention, I can't help but wonder if social media bans are a rare case where that intervention does more good than harm. We'll be right back after this quick break. Now, for this day in history. Arjimand Banu Begham was the fifth Mughal emperor Shah Jahan's third and favorite wife. She was so beloved that her husband gave her the name Mumtaz Mahal, meaning exalted one of the palace. Mumtaz was his trusted companion and confidant during military campaigns for the 19 years they were married.

Tragedy struck, however, during the birth of her 14th child. She died of postpartum hemorrhage on June 17, 1631, after prolonged labor. According to legend, Shah Jahan was so grieved that he went into secluded morning for a year and his hair turned white. During her life, Mumtaz Mahal supposedly made Shah Jahan promise her to build a palace tomb and to visit it each year on her death anniversary. As a monument of his love for his wife, Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal, one of the wonders of the modern world, in modern day Agra, India. The palace made of ivory marble took 22 years to complete, but once it was done, Mumtaz Mahal's body was interred there.

According to legend, Shah Jahan intended to build a black taj across the river to hold his own body, but war with his sons interrupted his plans. After his death, the new ruler, his son Arangzab, interred Shah Jahan in the Taj Mahal alongside his wife. Next up are under the radar story. On June 6th, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Federal Aviation Administration

to lift restrictions on overland supersonic flights. The rules, which have been in place for over five decades, prevented civil aircrafts from flying at supersonic speeds over U.S. landmasses, largely due to the loud supersonic boom these flights produce. The order calls on the FAA to establish an interim noise-based certification standard and would benefit supersonic flight companies such as boom supersonic, whose aircraft have already been ordered or pre-ordered by United, American, and Japan Airlines. Forbes has the story and you can find the link in the show notes.

Last up, have a nice day. One day while riding the New York subway with AirPods in, Molly Sala noticed that the woman beside her was asking her a question. That question sparked a conversation that blossomed into a friendship. Molly went from a stranger next to Maria on the train to visiting her apartment for dinner once a week. One day, Molly made a TikTok video about their friendship and about her commitment to helping Maria fulfill her lifelong dream of traveling back to Puerto Rico, the island home that she'd left seven decades earlier. Molly's video quickly went viral, and Molly and Maria will visit Puerto Rico in July.

Today has the story, and you can find the link in the show notes. All right, everybody, that's it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, you can head over to retangle.com and sign up for a membership. I also highly recommend that you tune in to watch the World Cup games. It's really exciting. It's like the only time that the entire world's watching something, including the Olympics, really.

So take a moment to do that if you can. You have basically the whole summer to do it. It's really long-pointed this year. We'll be back in your ear tomorrow with another Tangle edition. Until then, take care of yourselves. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me,

Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Wohl. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsay Cano, and Daly Song. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.

To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com.