...
By Newsweek Editors
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A parent can look at their child's phone and find there's an impossible assignment awaiting them.
Monitor every app, every feed, every stranger, every algorithmic nudge, every sleepless doomscroll. Inside each device is an endless loop of infinite internet, and all the risks that entails.
Some governments are taking action against the digital empires that own these social media platforms.
Read More on Analysis
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Monday that Britain plans to ban under-16s from using a range of social media apps, with the legislation expected to take effect by spring 2027, and stop strangers from contacting children on gaming and livestreaming platforms.
Put simply, Britain's answer is to tell platforms no. It was Australia's answer too, and there are signs that others in Europe are heading in the same direction, motivated by concerns about lasting damage to children's mental health and safety.
America's answer usually leaves parents with the assignment instead. Yet, 81 percent of U.S. adults told Pew Research Center in 2023 that they supported requiring parental consent before minors create social media accounts.
The British ban has real flaws, and America should not copy it wholesale. But the U.S. has handed parents the job of policing childhood online while giving them little help to do it against the corporate and cultural winds blowing hard in the other direction.
The Ban Shifts Responsibility to Platforms
Starmer's plan moves the burden of the fight from household supervision to platform obligation.
The ban would apply to platforms including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X, though it excludes messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal.
If the technology companies, which are mostly American, resist the move, Starmer threatened to fight back, framing the ban as an essential protection of children from harmful content and excessive screen time.
The ban sits inside a broader British policy turn. A government consultation that ran from March 2 to May 26 considered a minimum social media age, restrictions on risky design features such as infinite scrolling and autoplay, age verification or assurance, mobile-phone rules in schools, and better support for parents.
Ofcom, the British communications and media regulator, has finalized more than 40 child-safety measures under the Online Safety Act 2023, including safer feeds, stronger age checks, more control for children and named accountability inside services.
The state is treating platform design, access and child safety as urgent public-policy questions. The message for digital companies is blunt: you shaped the internet that our children encounter, and now we're forcing you to redesign it in their interests.
Americans Want Guardrails Without Bureaucracy
American adults are far less libertarian about children's internet use than Washington's trade and speech reflex suggests.
As well as finding four in five U.S. adults favor parental consent for children's social media accounts, Pew found that 71 percent favor age verification, and 69 percent favor time limits for minors.
Pew also recorded strong bipartisan support for those kinds of policies among Republicans and Democrats, including independents who lean toward either party.
Those numbers, however, prove a narrower point than full support for policy like Britain's under-16 ban.
U.S. adults broadly favor stronger minor-focused guardrails on social media.
Washington hears European tech regulation as bureaucracy, censorship, trade discrimination or all three, and the Trump administration has been fiercely critical of Europe on this subject.
But many parents hear a plainer question: who helps when the platforms are stronger than the household rules?
The oddity is that the most American-sounding demand in the debate—help parents protect their kids—is being answered more aggressively by Britain than by America.
Washington's Parent Trap
The parent trap gives parents responsibility without matching power.
The Trump administration's submission to the U.K. consultation opposed sweeping government restrictions and urged Britain to give parents stronger tools to manage children’s privacy settings and account controls.
The U.S. Embassy in London warned that regulations should be narrow, protect free speech and avoid placing heavier burdens on American technology companies.
That view deserves respect, but it also reveals the trap.
Parental empowerment sounds rhetorically strong until a busy household faces the practical challenges of defeating infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithmic recommendations, peer pressure, disappearing messages, group chats, and livestreams one child at a time.
A household can set rules. A platform can reset incentives. A parent can confiscate a phone. A company can redesign the feed, the notification, the recommendation engine and the default contact settings.
Washington often talks as if the family and the platform are equal combatants. Plainly, they are not; this is a David versus Goliath struggle.
Why Europe Can Move and America Freezes
A White House fact sheet issued in February 2025 showed the trans-Atlantic divide on tech regulation.
The White House said the Trump administration would review whether EU or U.K. policies encouraged American companies to develop or use technology in ways that undermine free speech or foster censorship.
It also said EU rules such as the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act would face scrutiny.
Foreign regulation can pressure American firms, reshape global speech rules, and create compliance costs that fall heavily on U.S. companies. These are genuine burdens on Silicon Valley.
Some of America’s freeze is principled. The Senate passed a kids' online safety and privacy package in 2024 by 91-3, but it did not become law; the Kids Online Safety Act was later reintroduced and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee.
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, upheld Texas' age-verification law for commercial websites publishing sexual content deemed harmful to minors in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, applying intermediate scrutiny to that category of age checks.
The ruling reached a different kind of speech from broad social-media access rules, which is why the constitutional path is narrower than either side prefers.
Britain can move faster because it accepts a premise Washington resists.
The House of Commons Library said the 2026 consultation received 116,211 responses and that Part 3 of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 will require the government to impose some form of age or functionality restriction for children under 16, rather than necessarily a full social media ban.
In Britain, platforms that shape childhood are being regulated as part of childhood’s infrastructure. In America, however, child-safety regulation first has to survive trade nationalism, First Amendment anxiety, partisan suspicion and the power of platforms.
The Critics Are Right About the Risks
There's a civil-liberties critique of bans that deserves to be heard.
The ACLU advocacy group argues that social media age-verification mandates can burden access to online speech, require personal information such as government ID, block people without suitable identification and chill anonymous participation online.
Similarly, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), another rights advocacy organization, argues that bans do not fix exploitative platform business models, can push young users into circumvention and can undermine privacy, security and expression.
A June 2026 academic paper by computer scientists on the U.K. Online Safety Act found increases in VPN-related discussion and search interest around regulatory milestones, and its authors argued that such regulation can create secondary privacy costs.
A ban can be evaded. Age checks can create new data risks. Teenagers may migrate to less regulated spaces. Marginalized young people, such as LGBTQ+ youth, may lose access to communities that matter.
The blunt European solution has serious problems. But America's non-answer has costs, too.
An American Compromise
The U.S. can reject Britain's under-16 ban while still admitting that platform design is a public concern. A more American compromise is possible.
It would focus on age-appropriate design, safer defaults, limits on addictive features, privacy-preserving age assurance, better enforcement against harmful algorithmic recommendations and statutory duties that place real burdens on platforms instead of symbolic burdens on parents.
Ofcom's child-safety code already points toward that design-based model by requiring safer feeds, effective age checks, more user control for children and stronger governance duties.
America does not want Europe's whole regulatory state, nor should it.
But on children and social media, it increasingly wants the one thing European regulation promises: someone besides parents standing between childhood and platforms built to monetize attention.
This is the parent trap Britain has exposed. America hands parents the responsibility, leaves the platforms the power, and labels the arrangement freedom.
Another way is possible.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines