Arturo Béjar, a former Meta engineer turned whistleblower, says parents around the world share a common dread: the day their children are old enough to go online.
Governments appear to be listening.
This month, the UK became the latest country to announce a minimum age of 16 for accessing major social media platforms.
The move follows Australia's precedent last year, which imposed age limits on platforms including Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, X, TikTok, and Snapchat.
Béjar, who testified in US trials that ruled Meta liable for designing addictive products, said: “I’ve spoken to parents from several countries, and I have yet to meet a parent of young kids who is not dreading when they’re old enough to go online.
Or a young person who has not experienced something awful and preventable.”
Meta disagreed with the verdicts and plans to appeal.
A spokesperson stated that the issue of teenagers’ mental health is “profoundly complex” and that the company remains committed to building “safe, supportive environments for young people.”
Growing Momentum for Restrictions
Indonesia and Malaysia have introduced bans for under-16s on certain platforms. Austria, France, and Norway are also considering age restrictions.
Brazil has implemented a blanket mobile phone ban in schools, and children under 16 can only access social media if linked to a parent’s account.
The UK plans to enforce its ban by spring 2027. Canada will bar under-16s from platforms unless adequate safeguards are in place.
In the US, a federal ban is unlikely due to political gridlock, the First Amendment, and big tech’s economic influence.
Despite nuanced findings from an independent academic panel, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer chose to act.
A source at a tech company affected by the ban expressed frustration that inconsistent safety efforts among rivals make regulation more likely.
“It’s hard to sell your safety measures to politicians when there is not enough consistency among your peers,” the source said, adding that Australia’s ban does not encourage safer design and has high circumvention rates.
Tech Industry Fights Back
The tech industry is lobbying heavily against restrictions.
In the EU, big tech spent approximately €150 million on lobbying last year, a third more than two years ago.
Meta was the biggest spender at €10 million. An EU lawmaker said tech companies are “bombarding” Brussels with messages challenging age bans.
In the US, tech companies are lobbying against the Kids Online Safety Act (Kosa).
Meta, the highest spending tech lobbyist, has one lobbyist for every six members of Congress. Between 2020 and 2024, big tech spent $260 million on federal lobbying.
Meta said it wants “uniform national standards for online youth safety.”
The Trump administration has been critical of foreign tech regulation, calling the UK’s proposed ban “disproportionate.”
Darrell West of the Brookings Institution said state bans are “not likely on a widespread basis” and a federal ban is unlikely because “too many legislators oppose government regulation of technology.”
Theo Bertram, director of the Social Market Foundation and a former TikTok executive, called the UK announcement a “tipping point.”
He said: “The history of legislation is you have one or two outliers.
And then when you start to get countries that have a regulatory influence in the world, like the UK, joining countries like Australia – then it becomes a tipping point.”
Bertram noted that populism has accelerated the legislative cycle and that tech companies are losing public opinion.
“A fundamental worry that tech companies have is that tech regulation is becoming a topic that’s driven by public sentiment rather than expert and evidence-led policymaking,” he said.
The UK government acknowledged “known harms” from social media, particularly to “high-risk” individuals, but also benefits. Nonetheless, it decided risks outweigh benefits for under-16s.
Whistleblower Béjar stressed the need for structural change: “Young people deserve online spaces that are designed for them.”
But patience is running out, and increasingly, the policy of choice is closure.
