The London Press Club has announced that its annual forum on the media issue of the moment will be: Should youngsters be banned from social media?
Whether the UK Government should ban access to social media for children has become a huge debate… particularly ON social media as well as in the House of Commons and the Lords.
There are those who say that the future well-being of the next generation depends on the decision. The London Press Club in association with the Stationers’ & Newspaper Makers Livery Company has pulled together a panel of experts who will thrash out the arguments.
The debate will take place from 6.45pm on Monday, 23 FEBRUARY, at Stationers’ Hall, near St Paul’s Cathedral. The panel discussion and Q&A session will be followed by a drinks and sandwiches reception.
The cost is £25 (£15 for Press Club members), including VAT.
CLICK HERE TO BOOK.
(Press Club members have been sent their booking link separately.)
The chair of the panel will be Christian May, Editor-in-Chief of City AM.
Christian May first held the role at City AM from 2015 – 2020, following a career in Westminster that included two years as Head of Communications and Campaigns at the Institute of Directors.
After leaving City AM Christian served as a Managing Director at Teneo until the end of 2022, before taking up positions as a Senior Advisor at Hawthorn and 5654 & Company. He returned to City AM in the summer of 2024. He provides a daily business and City update on LBC every weekday morning.
Christian May said: “This is a burning topic of debate, one I see playing out in our newsroom and – as the father of young children – at home.”
The panel will be:
Chloe Hubbard, UK Editor of the Independent and the incumbent Editor-in-chief of the Mirror;
Dawn Alford, Executive Director of the Society of Editors;
Joseph Sparks, Principal of the Leigh Stationers Academy in Eltham ;
Niva Yadav, a trainee journalist of the London Standard.
The panel will be asked to give views on the arguments so far.
Some say that to do nothing about social media will mean that youngsters will be damaged by exposure to material promoting eating disorders, self-harm, extreme violence, and “misogynistic” behaviour.
Others maintain that a ban is unnecessary and could push youngsters towards the dark web where there would be no control over content or parental oversight.
The arguments for and against the ban on social media include:
For a ban. It is said that:
- Banning access aims to shield children from severe risks that are often difficult for developing brains to manage.
- Reducing opportunities for adult grooming and sexual exploitation, which are often facilitated by social platforms.
- A ban encourages more face-to-face interaction, physical activity, and traditional hobbies like reading and sports.
- A blanket ban “removes the pressure” for children to be online just because their peers are, effectively leveling the social playing field.
- Arguments against a ban. It is said that:
- Experts warn that suddenly granting full access at age 16—without prior experience in a moderated environment—leaves adolescents unprepared to navigate high-risk platforms
- For marginalised or isolated young people, social media often serves as a critical lifeline for finding community, identity, and trusted help.
- Instead of keeping children off the internet, a ban may push them toward unregulated, “darker” corners where safety features and parental oversight are nonexistent.
- Many argue that blanket bans violate children’s rights to information, free expression, and participation in the digital world as recognized by the UN.
Arguments against a ban. It is said that:
-
Experts warn that suddenly granting full access at age 16—without prior experience in a moderated environment—leaves adolescents unprepared to navigate high-risk platforms
-
For marginalised or isolated young people, social media often serves as a critical lifeline for finding community, identity, and trusted help.
-
Instead of keeping children off the internet, a ban may push them toward unregulated, “darker” corners where safety features and parental oversight are nonexistent.
-
Many argue that blanket bans violate children’s rights to information, free expression, and participation in the digital world as recognized by the UN.
