Banning Social Media for Under-16s

Will the Pain Be Worth the Gain?

By Andi Cockroft, Chair, CORANZ

As a now-retired tech professional, I’ve spent a lifetime watching systems designed with good intentions collide with human ingenuity. That background leaves me sceptical of claims that any single piece of legislation can “fix” a complex social problem - especially when that problem lives in software, networks, and human behaviour.

So when proposals emerge to restrict social media access for under-16s, promising calmer minds, healthier development and a return to balance, my first instinct is not opposition - it’s realism.

The work-arounds are obvious

Anyone with even modest technical literacy can see what will happen next.

VPNs.
Borrowed accounts.
Adult-registered devices.
Forged ages.
Migration to smaller, less regulated platforms.
Encrypted group spaces that are harder, not easier, to see into.

None of this is hypothetical. It has happened with every age-restricted digital environment to date. It will happen again.

Governments are not well equipped to police this kind of behaviour at scale, and attempting to do so risks a losing arms race that erodes credibility faster than it protects children.

If the goal is a clean, enforceable ban that removes young people from social media entirely, it will fail.

That doesn’t mean the idea is pointless

But that isn’t the whole story.

Legislation does not have to be watertight to have an effect. Sometimes its value lies less in enforcement and more in setting norms.

A legal boundary:

• gives parents leverage,
• gives schools backing,
• and changes what is seen as “normal” rather than “inevitable”.

Even partial friction can reduce volume and intensity of use, delay exposure, and break the assumption that social media is simply part of childhood by default.

From a developmental perspective, delay matters.

So while I don’t believe this will create the utopia some predict, I do believe it could create something else: space.

What happens in the gap?

Here’s the critical question.

If screen-based socialising becomes harder - even slightly - what fills the gap?

Because it will be filled. Young people don’t respond to restriction by becoming contemplative monks. They respond by finding alternatives.

If those alternatives are:

• other screens,
• darker corners of the internet,
• or purely indoor substitutes,

then the policy achieves very little.

But if even a fraction of that displaced time moves into shared, real-world activity, the outcome looks different.

This is where CORANZ - and outdoor recreation more broadly - enters the picture.

Screens don’t just entertain - they substitute

Social media doesn’t succeed because it’s evil. It succeeds because it provides:

• connection,
• novelty,
• identity,
• and low-effort participation.

Any realistic alternative must offer at least some of those things.

The outdoors can - but only if we stop assuming that access alone is enough.

Telling young people to “go outside” has never worked. Inviting them into activities that are:

• social,
• low-pressure,
• accessible,
• and enjoyable,

sometimes does.

A barbecue by a river.
A casual swim.
A shared walk.
A discovery event.
A place where nobody is judged for not knowing the rules yet.

These are not grand adventures. They are gateways.

A window, not a solution

If social media restrictions create even a modest reduction in default screen use, that is not a solution - it is a window.

A window in which:

• unstructured time reappears,
• boredom returns (briefly),
• and the search for connection looks elsewhere.

Whether that window closes unused or opens into something better depends on what is visible and available on the other side.

Outdoor organisations cannot assume people will simply drift our way. We have to meet them where they are - uncertain, inexperienced, and often lacking confidence.

A realistic optimism

I remain pessimistic about the idea that governments can out-engineer teenagers. That battle will be lost.

But I am cautiously optimistic about something else.

If society is finally acknowledging that unlimited screen exposure is not neutral - that attention, presence and embodied experience matter - then the outdoors has something uniquely valuable to offer.

Not as a moral corrective.
Not as therapy.
Not as policy.

But as a place where:

• learning happens by doing,
• connection happens naturally,
• and confidence is rebuilt quietly.

The legislation may be blunt. The work-arounds inevitable. The rhetoric overstated.

But the opportunity - if we choose to take it - is real.

And it’s one that CORANZ, and those who care about outdoor access and participation, should be ready for.