Dr Lucy Foulkes - Adolescent mental health: The truth behind the headlines

What did you think of Keir Starmer's announcement a few days ago to ban social media in the under-16s?

My heart sank a bit when I turned on the news in the morning and I saw that because it had kind of been brewing and I was hoping it wasn't going to happen.

So I was a bit disappointed here that it will.

Not because I think social media is problem free.

I think there's lots of potential risks and harms online for teenagers.

But like lots of other professionals and commentators working in this space, I don't think a ban for under 16s is... useful solution.

I don't think it's going to achieve what people are hoping it will achieve, which is to just make this problem of social media go away.

And I actually think it's going to introduce some new problems in terms of teenagers not being able to talk about things that happen online.

I think there's probably an age at which it is quite straightforward to say that young people shouldn't be on social media.

But I think that's maybe more like 13, which is actually what the law is officially at the moment.

I think it's that 13 to 15 age group, which I think this is not the right solution for protecting them and helping them navigate the online world.

Teenagers want to communicate with each other and they want to use the technology that adults use to communicate with each other.

So it's an incredibly complicated problem to try and

manage.

So if this isn't the way that you would have wanted the government to respond, what would you like the government to be doing on this issue?

I'd defer to the Molly Rose Foundation, who I think are really spearheading the desire for a better alternative, which is more about regulation, the idea that brands... essentially let tech companies off the hook and the product itself is still risky and potentially harmful for young people and for adults, right? Like the things that are upsetting for teenagers can be upsetting for adults as well.

And so actually they think that more effective route to mitigating risk for everyone is actually making the product safer at source.

But obviously, there needs to be a lot of pressure on the tech companies and a lot of consequences if they don't do that.

They've been able to operate pretty freely up until now.

So it's not going to be easy to change that.

But I think that seems to...

Everyone who I kind of respect and pay attention to in this field seems to be saying bans aren't the answer.

We should look at better regulation.

All the conversation is about harm and danger and risk.

But actually, there's lots and lots and lots of aspects of social media which young people enjoy and benefit from.

What did you think of Keir Starmer's announcement a few days ago to ban social media in the under-16s?

My heart sank a bit when I turned on the news in the morning and I saw that because it had kind of been brewing and I was hoping it wasn't going to happen.

So I was a bit disappointed here that it will.

Not because I think social media is problem free.

I think there's lots of potential risks and harms online for teenagers.

But like lots of other professionals and commentators working in this space, I don't think a ban for under 16s is... useful solution.

I don't think it's going to achieve what people are hoping it will achieve, which is to just make this problem of social media go away.

And I actually think it's going to introduce some new problems in terms of teenagers not being able to talk about things that happen online.

I think there's probably an age at which it is quite straightforward to say that young people shouldn't be on social media.

But I think that's maybe more like 13, which is actually what the law is officially at the moment.

I think it's that 13 to 15 age group, which I think this is not the right solution for protecting them and helping them navigate the online world.

Teenagers want to communicate with each other and they want to use the technology that adults use to communicate with each other.

So it's an incredibly complicated problem to try and

manage.

So if this isn't the way that you would have wanted the government to respond, what would you like the government to be doing on this issue?

I'd defer to the Molly Rose Foundation, who I think are really spearheading the desire for a better alternative, which is more about regulation, the idea that brands... essentially let tech companies off the hook and the product itself is still risky and potentially harmful for young people and for adults, right? Like the things that are upsetting for teenagers can be upsetting for adults as well.

And so actually they think that more effective route to mitigating risk for everyone is actually making the product safer at source.

But obviously, there needs to be a lot of pressure on the tech companies and a lot of consequences if they don't do that.

They've been able to operate pretty freely up until now.

So it's not going to be easy to change that.

But I think that seems to...

Everyone who I kind of respect and pay attention to in this field seems to be saying bans aren't the answer.

We should look at better regulation.

All the conversation is about harm and danger and risk.

But actually, there's lots and lots and lots of aspects of social media which young people enjoy and benefit from.