NEARLY three-quarters of Islanders support a ban on social media for under-16s, according to a new poll.
The survey of nearly 2,400 people across the Crown Dependencies found that Jersey residents were more supportive of the measure than people in Guernsey, the Isle of Man or Gibraltar.
Carried out by Island Global Research between 17 and 22 June, it found that 72% of Jersey respondents believed a social media ban for under-16s should be introduced locally, while 23% opposed the idea and 5% were undecided.
The result was the highest level of support recorded across the four jurisdictions surveyed. Support stood at 63% in Guernsey, 62% in the Isle of Man and 64% in Gibraltar.
In Jersey, support was strongest among Islanders aged 25 to 44, with 82% backing a ban, while support remained above 50% in every age group surveyed.
Women were more likely to support restrictions than men, with 77% in favour compared with 64% of male respondents.
Parents were also more supportive of the proposal than non-parents. Four in five respondents with children under 18 backed a ban, compared with 64% of those without children.
It comes after outgoing UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer announced sweeping new legislation banning under-16s from accessing all major social-media platforms.
The ban – which is due to come into force next spring – encompasses Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, X and Facebook. It has been described by the UK government as “marking a line in the sand and setting a new normal for future generations”.
Various politicians told the JEP last week that they would be supportive of such a measure locally, while the Children’s Commissioner raised concerns that it would “neither keep children safe from potential harms, nor support their rights”.
What do young people think?
Beaulieu School pupils recently debated the looming threat of a social media ban.
Year 9 business studies students were asked to consider the question, “Is the government’s new social media ban for under-16s a good decision for society and businesses?”, from four distinct perspectives: teenagers, parents, child psychologists and social companies.
Representing the teenagers, Lucie, Christine, Juliette and Milli pointed out that social media “helps young people stay connected with friends and family”.
“We think that it should be the parents’ choice, and the national ban is unfair,” they argued.
From the parents’ point of view, Florence, Ava, Mia, Honor and Eva noted that the rate of suicides in young people had risen by 16% over the last 15 years.
“Parents are struggling to keep up with the specific apps and platforms their children are using,” they said.
“The lack of platform control moderation makes it extremely hard to filter out dangerous material, bullying and inappropriate content before children are exposed to it.”
Isabelle, Amber and Lilias – speaking from the perspective of child psychologists – argued that the ban would “protect the vulnerable, developing brains of younger children” and advocated for a “shift back to a play-based childhood”.
Representing social media companies, Bade, Sophia, Chloe and Orla referred to the fact that businesses are likely to lose over £1.3 billion a month in advertising revenue as a result of the UK ban.
Having dissected the social media ban from an imagined perspective, the students were then asked to offer their own opinion on the legislation.
Ava said that social media “should be limited” instead of “banned completely”.
“When you ban something completely, it can cause children to rebel, and then they just end up doing the exact opposite and find a way around it,” she argued.
Her classmate Honor accepted that the ban would “help teenagers who really struggle with social media”, but added that it was “a bit too late”.
Isabelle objected to the ban on the basis that “vulnerable children find people that they can relate to on social media that they might not have in real life”.
“I don’t think it should be a complete ban,” she said. “But I think it’s good that it’s limited, because there are some people with over 12 hours of screen time.”
Fellow student Juliette said that it should be up to parents to prevent their children from accessing potentially dangerous social media platforms.
“If they think that it’s affecting their child really badly, they should just ban it completely – it’s not the responsibility of the government to do what parents should be doing,” she stated.
And Milli described “taking social media away from the generation that has grown up with it” as “a bit unreasonable”.
“They don’t know how to live without it, because it’s something that they’re used to,” she explained.
“Maybe it would be more impactful to slowly take away social media from the new generation so they know how to grow up without it.”
