Everyone needs to urgently write yo their MP.
Dear [MP Name],
I am writing as a constituent to express my concern about the proposed inclusion of YouTube in the list of platforms affected by the planned under-16 social media restrictions.
I fully support the objective of protecting children from online harm. Social media can clearly expose young people to addictive design, bullying, harmful content, inappropriate adult contact, unrealistic social comparison, and excessive screen time. I do not dismiss those risks. However, I am concerned that including YouTube in a broad platform ban is disproportionate, overbroad, and likely to create unintended consequences.
YouTube is not simply an entertainment or social media platform in the same way as many short-form social apps. It is also one of the world’s largest informal learning platforms. Young people use it for GCSE revision, coding tutorials, science explainers, language learning, music lessons, maths support, sports coaching, practical skills, university lectures, careers information, and teacher-created educational resources. While YouTube’s commercial model certainly has problems, particularly around attention retention and recommendations, the platform also contains substantial educational and public-interest content.
A blanket ban risks removing access to these legitimate uses rather than targeting the actual sources of harm. In my view, that is poor policy design. The better approach would be to regulate the harmful mechanics: addictive recommendation loops, autoplay, infinite scroll, targeted advertising to minors, weak privacy defaults, inappropriate adult contact, harmful content amplification, and inadequate moderation. Those are the features that cause many of the problems, not the mere existence of educational video content on a large platform.
I am also concerned about the civil liberties and privacy implications of enforcing such a ban. To determine whether someone is under 16, platforms may need to age-check all users, including adults. That risks normalising a new layer of identity verification for ordinary internet access, potentially involving ID checks, facial age estimation, parent-linked accounts, or digital identity systems. This should not be treated as a minor technical detail. It is a significant change in the relationship between citizens, private technology companies, and the state.
There is also the practical question of effectiveness. Young people are highly likely to work around broad restrictions through VPNs, false dates of birth, older siblings’ accounts, parent logins, cloned apps, or less regulated platforms. If that happens, children may be pushed away from mainstream platforms with at least some moderation, reporting tools, parental controls, and safety infrastructure, and towards less visible spaces where parents, schools, regulators, and responsible companies have less oversight. That would be a poor outcome.
I am especially worried that a ban may give parents and policymakers a false sense of security. The core problem is not simply that children can access named platforms. The deeper problem is that many platforms have been designed around maximising attention and engagement, even when that conflicts with children’s wellbeing. A policy that blocks access to a list of platforms may look decisive, but it does not necessarily address the underlying design incentives.
I would therefore urge you to oppose the inclusion of YouTube in any blanket under-16 ban, or at minimum to press for a much more carefully targeted approach. This could include:
1. Stronger age-appropriate default settings for minors
2. Restrictions on targeted advertising to children
3. Limits on addictive recommendation systems and autoplay for young users
4. Stronger controls on adult stranger contact
5. Better parental control tools at platform and device level
6. Greater transparency over recommendation algorithms
...