Michael Gray: The Conservative policy on social media for U16’s is pro-childhood not anti-tech

Dr Michael Gray is the Chairman of Hereford & South Herefordshire Conservative Association and the Executive Headmaster of a 3-18 independent school in the West Midlands.

You don’t need to spend very long in a school today to see the impact of social media.

It is visible in friendship groups destabilised overnight by the fallout from group chats; in the heightened anxiety that stems from constant comparison; in the quiet but persistent erosion of self-regulation. Increasingly, it shapes how children relate to one another and, more concerningly, how they perceive themselves.

For those of us working in education, this is not simply theoretical. It is a daily reality which is played out in the corridors and classrooms. Pastoral teams are dealing with disputes that begin online and escalate rapidly. Teachers are contending with shorter attention spans and pupils who struggle to concentrate for sustained periods. Beneath it all lies a deeper issue: childhood is being eroded.

For too long, the response has been to place the burden almost entirely on parents. Undoubtedly, parents have the primary responsibility for setting boundaries—limiting access, confiscating devices where appropriate, and guiding their children’s behaviour. Many do so admirably. But they are not operating on a level playing field. They are in a battle with their children who face tremendous peer pressure. They are operating against platforms that are deliberately engineered to maximise engagement and addiction. And these systems are not neutral; they are designed to promote the extreme, amplify outrage, and keep users scrolling.

The conservative case for restricting social media is therefore, at its heart, a case for supporting families. It recognises that individual responsibility matters – but also that it must be exercised within a framework that does not actively undermine it.

There has, understandably, been a tendency on the political right to treat the digital sphere as simply another market, where consumer choice and minimal regulation should prevail. In most circumstances, that approach is sensible. But when the consumers are children, the argument becomes far less convincing. We already accept, without controversy, that children require protection in other areas of life; age restrictions exist on alcohol, gambling, and driving and are not seen as authoritarian overreach but as prudent safeguards which are underpinned by common sense.

Why, then, should social media be treated differently?

Conservatives are rightly committed to freedom—but freedom is not an abstract principle detached from age or maturity. It is something that must be exercised responsibly and proportionally to cognitive and developmental maturity. We do not allow children to make all choices for themselves, not because we are hostile to liberty, but because we recognise that childhood is a distinct and formative phase of life which requires protection.

The evidence from schools reinforces this point. The decline in attention spans is not anecdotal; it is observable and widespread. Sleep deprivation, often driven by late-night device use, is affecting academic performance. Anxiety levels have risen sharply, with social comparison and online validation playing a significant role in this. Even in schools that enforce strict mobile phone policies, much of the damage occurs beyond the school gates.

None of this is to argue that technology is inherently harmful. On the contrary, it offers enormous opportunities for learning, creativity, and connection. Students must be equipped to navigate a digital world, and schools have an important role to play in that preparation. But the current social media ecosystem is not designed with children’s interests in mind. It rewards intensity, immediacy, and emotional reaction—qualities to which the adolescent brain is particularly susceptible.

A conservative response, therefore, should be proportionate, pragmatic, and rooted in reality.

Firstly, we should be willing to enforce meaningful age limits for accessing social media platforms. Existing restrictions are often little more than box-ticking exercises, easily circumvented by any reasonably determined child. Proper age verification would not eliminate the problem entirely, but it would significantly raise the barrier to entry. Crucially, it would shift the balance of power back towards parents and schools, supporting their efforts rather than undermining them.

Secondly, responsibility must extend beyond the family to the companies that design and profit from these platforms. A genuinely pro-market position does not entail ignoring market failures. Where incentives lead to outcomes that are demonstrably harmful – particularly to children – it is entirely consistent with conservative principles to intervene. This is not about hostility to business, but about ensuring that markets operate within a framework that promotes the common good.

Thirdly, conservatives should be confident in asserting a cultural expectation that childhood is a protected phase of life. This is not an exercise in nostalgia, nor an attempt to turn back technological progress. It is a recognition that certain boundaries are both necessary and beneficial. A childhood less dominated by mobile phones is likely to be one characterised by stronger relationships, better mental health and greater resilience.

In the long term, this is not merely a social or moral argument, but also an economic one. A generation of young people who are healthier, more focused, and more emotionally stable will contribute more effectively to society and the economy. Conversely, the costs of inaction – rising mental health issues and sick days, reduced productivity, and increased demand on public services – are likely to be substantial.

Critics will argue that such restrictions are impractical or unenforceable. Others will suggest that the pace of technological change renders regulation futile. These concerns should not be dismissed lightly. But nor should they become excuses for inaction. We have, in other areas of modern life, found ways to set and enforce boundaries despite complexity. The same can be done here.

Encouragingly, public opinion appears to be shifting. In a recent ConservativeHome survey of party members, almost two-thirds supported a ban on social media for under-16s. This suggests a growing recognition that something needs to change.

Ultimately, the question is a simple one: are we prepared to act on what we can already see? Schools, parents, and increasingly young people themselves are telling us that something is not working. The status quo is not neutral – it is having a measurable and, in many cases, damaging impact on childhood.

Under the leadership of Kemi Badenoch and with voices such as Laura Trott bringing focus to the issue, there is now an opportunity for Conservatives to take a clear and principled stance.

This is not about being anti-technology. It is about being pro-childhood.