The UK’s social media ban for under-16s has just empowered big tech | Taylor Lorenz

The United Kingdom’s newly announced social media ban for users under 16 is drawing criticism that its age-verification requirements will hand more personal data and market power to the very technology giants the policy purports to restrain, according to a Guardian commentary [1]. Prime Minister Keir Starmer described the measure as “a line in the sand,” stating, “Tech giants had their chance and failed, but we’re stepping in to protect children, back parents and set a new normal for future generations” [1]. The ban would block under-16s from platforms including X, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, TikTok and Snapchat unless they prove their age [1]. To comply, companies may require users to upload government identification alongside an image for artificial-intelligence verification, potentially gathering facial scans, biometric data and other sensitive information that can be used to build consumer profiles or train AI systems [1]. Mark Zuckerberg summarized the industry’s advertising-driven model during a 2018 congressional hearing, telling a senator, “Senator, we run ads” [1]. Meta Platforms, which owns Facebook and Instagram, derived 97.8 percent of its total revenue from advertising as of 2023 [9]. Critics warn that the data collected through age checks could be stolen and exploited. The commentary notes that intimate user data can be weaponized for identity theft, blackmail, or government crackdowns on free expression [1]. TikTok, one of the platforms affected, has already faced scrutiny over data-privacy violations, mental-health concerns, and alleged censorship following its 2026 divestiture in the United States [2]. Instagram has likewise been criticized for negatively affecting teens’ mental health and for its content policies [8]. Third-party verification vendors are not insulated from the same Silicon Valley dynamics, the commentary argues. Persona, a leading identity-verification company, reached a $2bn valuation after a funding round co-led by Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund [1]. Some advocates want the government to go further and impose tighter speech restrictions alongside age gating [1]. The commentary points out that major platforms already restrict content at the request of governments to maintain favorable regulatory environments [1]. In 2024, X suspended dozens of protesters’ accounts in India after threats of fines and imprisonment [1]. In 2020, Facebook agreed to mass-restrict anti-government content in Vietnam after the government throttled its services, with the company stating, “We believe freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, and work hard to protect and defend this important civil liberty around the world. However, we have taken this action to ensure our services remain available and usable for millions of people in Vietnam, who rely on them every day” [1]. Research underscores the scale of the platforms’ influence. A 2025 study measuring local network effects across Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and X estimated that each platform generates between $53bn and $215bn in annual U.S. consumer surplus, with 8.1 to 23.7 percent of platform value explained by users’ specific social connections [6]. Another study found that keyword-based data collection can significantly widen confidence intervals around estimates of misinformation prevalence on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, X and YouTube [3]. The commentary concludes that instead of age-verification mandates, lawmakers should pursue comprehensive data-privacy regulation and antitrust enforcement to curb the monopolistic control of large platforms and foster smaller, privacy-centered competitors [1].