When the government announced it would welcome influencers into its tightly controlled media circles late last year, the reaction drew ire from the public and politicians alike.
Critics claimed treating influencers like traditional journalists was just a way for ministers to dodge tough scrutiny.
Downing Street has always insisted engaging with content creators is a vital way to reach younger voters – a demographic it desperately needs to shore up as it prepares to hand the vote to 16-year-olds for the first time.
But by the time the UK is due to hold its next general election in 2029, under-16s will have been banned from social media for two years.
The first set of regulations could come into force as soon as spring 2027, with platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X included under the restrictions.
MPs and social media experts have raised concerns about “tensions” between the two policies, with some suggesting extending the franchise while banning social media could leave the youngest voters vulnerable to misinformation online.
Some MPs have also said they are worried the social media ban risks alienating young people from politics before they can even vote.
Josh Dean, 26, is one of the youngest MPs and one of the only parliamentarians to have grown up with social media.
He remembers marching to Parliament Square to call for votes at 16 after the Brexit referendum at the age of 16 – after finding out about the march on social media – and says being on the benches of a Labour government lowering the voting age is “one of the great privileges of my life”.
But he told The Independent he is concerned young people “don’t feel listened to” on the government’s decision to implement a blanket ban, and this could stop them from engaging with politics in the long term.
“Young people engaged with the consultation in good faith,” he said. “Lots of them feel they weren’t listened to. We want to empower young people, but I’m worried this might leave them wondering what the point is.”
He is also worried that removing the “practical experience” of using social media before they can vote could leave young voters vulnerable to misinformation online once they turn 16.
“I’m worried about the potential conflict between the two policies, because young people consume information digitally,” he explained.
“We can’t convince ourselves that this just means they’re going to go and pick up a newspaper. And if we want young people to engage with these things, and also if we want to help them to understand how to discern between information and disinformation, practical experience is really important.”
Fact-checking charity Full Fact criticised the government’s decision to ban under-16s from social media as a “de facto surrender in the fight against harmful online misinformation” that “gives social media companies a free pass”.
Head of public affairs at the charity Mark Frankel said the ban feels like “taking with one hand and giving with another”.
Recent Full Fact data shows nearly three in four (74 per cent) young people aged 13 to 14 report seeing content about news, politics or current affairs online, rising to 81 per cent among 15- to 17-year-olds.
“We know that young people predominantly get their information from social media,” he said. “Denying them access to information on social media platforms is a problem because you’re denying them a level of media literacy.
“If the government is serious about extending participation in our democratic process to 16- and 17-year-olds, restricting their access to these platforms is unlikely to help them become better informed.”
But James Armstrong, co-founder of social media agency Social Firefly, said politicians shouldn’t be relying on social media to reach young voters regardless of a ban.
“Social media is a useful place to reach them, but you have to find other ways to do that, too,” he explained.
He believes the ban could see politicians move back towards a more traditional way of reaching teens, including through youth clubs – which Labour said it would be investing in as part of measures surrounding the ban – and school debates.
“The government have said that they’re going to invest more in youth clubs and youth services,” he said. “Over time we might find political parties sponsoring youth debates at schools or getting a closer relationship with youth organisations so that they can start to influence through that.”
But he also thinks it could encourage innovations in how teenagers discuss politics online.
“We’ve got to remember the ban isn’t on all websites,” he said. “Children will still have access to online avenues, they will still be able to find information, and if they’re directed in the right way to the right information, that gives them facts.”
He believes parents, schools, and older siblings will play a crucial role in directing children to reliable online sources, and therefore influencers will still be able to reach under-16s through the adults around them.
“Creating content for parents and older siblings is a really important part of all of this,” he said. “You don’t target the 14-year-olds, you target the people who they listen to.”
A government spokesperson said: “This is not an either-or choice. Giving 16-year-olds the right to vote will empower young people to get involved in democracy. Our decision to ban social media companies from offering their services to under 16s reflects the fact that they have repeatedly failed to keep children safe online.
“Under-16s will still have access to the internet, news sites and platforms designed to be safe for them from the start. We are also strengthening the curriculum so that citizenship lessons are compulsory in primary school, and investing in projects which will help engage groups like young people in our democracy.
“We’ve also launched a campaign to give parents and carers practical tools to help children build resilience to misinformation and develop critical thinking skills online.”
