United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that the UK would soon ban children aged 16 and younger from accessing most social media platforms. Starmer cited growing concern and evidence of the “harmful functions” that these sites have on children as the reason for the ban.

“Every parent can see it with their own eyes. Social media is making children unhappy," Starmer asserted. "I’ve heard firsthand from families crying out for change, and we will do right by them.”

The prime minister isn’t wrong about the negative impact of social media on children and young people, as we and many others have noted. The UK will join Australia in banning teenagers and children from accessing these social media platforms.

Since the evidence increasingly demonstrates just how negative the impact of social media can be on teenagers and children, it’s tempting to see the UK and Australia’s actions as a good thing overall. They are seeking to protect children, after all.

And in that narrow sense, they can be commended, if it’s the thought that counts. However, as the aphorism states, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

There are serious concerns, especially regarding the role and power of government over the citizenry, that should prompt any freedom-loving society to hit the pause button for any government action on this issue.

First and foremost is the blurring of the lines between parental authority and responsibility over their children and the imposition of the state into that fundamental relationship.

The second concern is the apparent imposition on freedom of speech — and the United Kingdom has a terrible record on that front in recent years.

The UK government has released an initial list of social media platforms that will be barred to those aged 16 and younger. The list includes X, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. Interestingly, the list does not yet include the notoriously leftist-dominated platform Bluesky.

On this point, it appears that the UK has simply taken its cue from Australia, which also has not banned Bluesky youth access, despite the fact that the site has become notorious for predators.

Predictably, the Big Tech social media platforms expressed disagreement with the upcoming ban. A Meta spokesperson argued, “To be both effective and easy for parents, any restrictions must be underpinned by an age verification system on devices so people aren’t asked to hand over ID to dozens of individual services to prove their age. We will continue to engage with the government and Ofcom as they work to implement this policy.”

Google-owned YouTube also weighed in. “We’ve invested in expert-led, age-appropriate experiences and default protections for teens for over a decade and will continue to do so,” the company said. “Blanket bans push kids out of … curated, supervised, beneficial experiences and towards anonymous, less safe services.”

Furthermore, there is the unnerving implication of an expanding surveillance state. It would seem that the UK aims to turn George Orwell’s 1984 from fiction into reality.

A look at China and its social credit surveillance system demonstrates just how insidious a government handed too much power can quickly become.

Protecting the most vulnerable in society is important and something every government should rightly pursue. However, that has to be balanced against the peril of government overreach. The unintended consequences of a social media ban may prove worse than the problem it is meant to solve, especially since kids will easily find workarounds if their parents aren’t vigilant about enforcing the rules.