Medical leaders warn social media poses smoking-level health risk to youth

Social media poses a health risk to young people similar to smoking, according to 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 among under-16s, suggesting that doctors regularly inquire young patients about their screen time and social media use. The submission comes as Technology Secretary Liz Kendall confirmed that new measures to regulate social media for children will be implemented by the year’s end, with a government response to the consultation anticipated this summer. The government is considering a range of interventions, including an outright ban akin to Australia’s latest laws, alongside options including app time limits and strengthened age verification checks.

Doctors state social media a serious health threat to the public

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has published a detailed range of recommendations to address what it views as a critical public health threat. The body is urging doctors and medical practitioners to be given guidance on spotting problematic social media use amongst young patients. In its response to the government consultation, the Academy has drawn attention to the health and wellbeing consequences of children being subjected to violent material and damaging content online. The submission emphasises that the pace with which damaging material can reach children—often in seconds—makes social media uniquely hazardous compared to traditional health risks.

Consultant child psychiatrist Dr Emily Sehmer has characterised the dangers of prolonged social media use as “much, much worse” than smoking, given how quickly harmful content can be accessed by younger people. She emphasised that the problem is affecting increasingly younger age groups, making action critical. Dr Sehmer has stressed the importance of medical practitioners taking a non-judgemental approach when discussing social media usage with young patients. The Academy is also recommending that possible risks from social media be officially documented in healthcare environments, helping to fill a significant gap in data about the actual extent and nature of the problem.

• Evening access restrictions to limit access during vulnerable hours
• Removing auto-play functionality and endless scrolling features on digital services
• Enhanced identity checks and identity checks for platform members
• Medical professionals instruction on recognising excessive screen time habits

Public consultation attracts record-breaking participation on possible limitations

The government’s review on online platform usage among under-16s has generated remarkable community participation, with 70,000 responses received from charities, campaign groups and members of the public. This substantial response demonstrates widespread concern about the effect of social platforms on the wellbeing of young people. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall has emphasised the government’s commitment to taking action, noting that fresh interventions will be implemented by the year’s end. The consultation, which closes at the close of Tuesday, has sought views on whether an outright ban—similar to Australia’s latest laws—or other approaches would be most successful.

Kendall has underscored that the government is evaluating a wide range of issues and features affecting children’s online safety, guaranteeing a thorough strategy to the challenge. The engagement process has been notably participatory, actively seeking input from key stakeholders to shape policy outcomes. The government’s scope extends further than platforms subject to Australia’s constraints, with particular attention being paid to services including Roblox and Discord. Officials have suggested that the consultation outcomes will be made available during the summer, then the implementation of selected measures before the end of the year.

Proposed measures being reviewed

• Outright ban on social media access for children below sixteen years old
• Required evening restrictions restricting access during late evening and early morning hours
• Disabling recommendation functions including auto-play and infinite scroll functionality
• Improved age checking and user identity checks implemented across all platforms
• Compulsory parental monitoring tools and monitoring tools embedded in social applications

The government has already started trialling some proposed interventions in UK-based households since March, gathering real-world data about their viability and effectiveness. These trial programmes have evaluated how measures such as app curfews and improved age verification might function in practical contexts. By trialling these approaches ahead of full implementation, policymakers aim to ensure that any controls implemented are simultaneously practical and genuinely beneficial for young people’s wellbeing and protection online.

Campaign groups at odds regarding outright ban compared to focused controls

The consultation process has uncovered a stark divide amongst campaigners and advocacy groups concerning the most practical method to safeguarding young people against social media harms. Whilst some groups champion an outright ban comparable to Australia’s pioneering law, others argue that more tailored, focused measures would prove more practical and long-lasting. This fundamental disagreement reflects wider doubt within the child protection sector about whether prohibition represents the most balanced approach, or whether alternative measures might achieve comparable benefits with reduced negative side effects.

The debate has intensified as the government readies itself to reveal its answer to the consultation’s 70,000 submissions. Campaign groups and charities have submitted competing visions for how best to safeguard young people, with some stressing the need for firm measures and others raising concerns over excessively stringent measures. This variety of perspectives highlights the complexity of formulating policy in an area where research agreement remains unclear and where different stakeholders prioritise different aspects of young people’s welfare and internet freedom.

Arguments for broad restrictions

Advocates for a complete prohibition contend that online social platforms create such considerable threats to young people’s physical and mental health that prohibition constitutes the only truly protective measure. They contend that the pace at which young people can access damaging material—from extreme violence to abusive content—leaves focused oversight inadequate. Proponents of this strategy reference Australia’s decisive legislative action as demonstration that comprehensive bans are feasible and vital, especially considering the habit-forming design elements intentionally designed into social media sites to maximise user activity and screen usage.

Issues with ban effectiveness

Critics of an outright ban voice practical concerns about enforcement and unintended consequences. They query whether prohibition could effectively prevent young users from gaining access to social media through workaround methods, potentially driving usage underground where it becomes more difficult to monitor. Some groups worry that a outright ban might be counterproductive, steering teenagers towards poorly regulated platforms or producing a generation cut off from digital environments where young people interact with each other. These bodies advocate instead for focused interventions tackling specific harms whilst preserving young people’s ability to participate in internet communities.

Tech sector responses and enforcement challenges ahead

Technology companies have generally stayed cautious in their public responses to the government’s consultation, with many pledging to improve age verification mechanisms and implement parental controls rather than endorsing complete prohibitions. Major platforms including Meta, TikTok and YouTube have put forward their own recommendations, emphasising existing safety features and arguing that nuanced regulation targeting specific harms 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 mitigate risks whilst preserving the social and creative benefits these platforms offer younger audiences. However, critics challenge whether self-regulatory approaches from companies with substantial financial motivation to maximise engagement can adequately protect at-risk users.

Enforcement represents a considerable difficulty irrespective of which regulatory framework the government ultimately adopts. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall noted that any measures put forward by year-end would must be sufficiently strong to withstand legal challenges and show results in real-world settings. International precedent indicates that establishing age controls at scale requires sophisticated verification systems that reconcile child protection with privacy issues. The government’s review of platforms beyond those covered by Australia’s ban—including Roblox and Discord—demonstrates understanding that a comprehensive approach must address the full spectrum of services young people genuinely use, not merely the largest social networks.

The administration’s response during summer to the consultation will probably reveal whether ministers support the Australian approach of age-restricted bans or a more detailed regulatory structure. Kendall’s assertion that “we’ve got to get this right, and we’ve got to ensure it endures” indicates policymakers understand the stakes involved—any policies introduced must withstand both technological innovation and possible legal challenges whilst truly enhancing young people’s safety without inadvertently pushing them towards poorly regulated alternatives.