"It's All So Tiresome": UK's Social Media Ban Trudges Ever Onward

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

The UK government’s “consultation” on social media harm is over, and – brace yourselves – it turns out they’re going to have to do something about it.

I know, I was shocked too.

The main talking point is that “social media is like cigarettes”. Everyone is saying that, it’s the meme of the day.

It’s a sentiment originally taken from a new report submitted to the consultation by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges.

Titled “Growing up in an online world”, it contains this hilarious line in the foreword:

…there is, I think, an overwhelming consensus that excessive screen time can harm children and young people and we need to call this out unflinchingly rather than passively wait for someone else to prove causation”.

Which is a pretty neat summary of how our political system works in general, and certainly in this case: We don’t know if there’s even a problem yet, but by God we’re gonna do something about it.

That the something they end up doing makes them rich and powerful is just one of the curious coincidences tyrants can always rely on.

{Sidenote: This morning the BBC had “Overwhelimg consensus” in their headline on this story, but at some point the absurdity of that quote was realised, and the headline changed. Now there’s this disclaimer near the end: “There is no consensus among the wider scientific community that screen time overall is harmful to children.” Funny stuff.}

Elsewhere, the report wails about “a wave of radicalized children” who pose “a real risk to society”, and calls social media “an incredibly powerful and uncontrolled commercial detriment to health”.

In a similar vein, The Guardian is warning of a “tsunami of harm”, and has assembled an all-star cast of interested parties to talk up the scariness of social media meanness.

After meeting with “bereaved parents” earlier today, Keir Starmer has “vowed to take action”.

His potential rival for the leadership has been even more vocal. Political eunuch and leadership hopeful Wes Streeting is all over this, campaigning hard to be the next disposable suit full of bugger all to “lead the country”:

Big tech's behaviour has been akin to big tobacco, introducing an addictive and harmful product whilst avoiding regulation.

We’ve got to give our children their childhood back, and that starts with a social media ban for under-16s. pic.twitter.com/soRbjbHIsG

— Wes Streeting (@wesstreeting) May 26, 2026

He thinks a ban should be “just the start”:

Social media should be treated like tobacco – it’s extremely addictive, bad for our health, and big tech is borrowing the big tobacco playbook to avoid regulation. We’ve got to give our children their childhood back […] A ban for under-16s must be the start, not the end […]We have given the pen to tech moguls to write our future for us. It’s time to take the pen back.”

Streeting is an idiot whose ambition outweighs his intellect by a factor of ten, and who clearly doesn’t understand the rules of the game he’s playing.

Some political handler behind the scenes probably told him to go hard on this issue because it will make him look tough and assertive, but the likely truth is he’s being wheeled out as the extreme option so a “sensible middle ground” option – probably Andy Burnham – can enforce “common sense policies”.

What will those policies be? It doesn’t really matter, but we’ll get to that.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall, notable only for garnering less than 5% of the vote in the 2015 leadership election, is out there promising “action”:

'The question isn't whether we are going to act, we will'

As a consultation on social media use for under-16s comes to an end Technology Secretary Liz Kendall told #BBCBreakfast the Government plans to take actionhttps://t.co/jJ6RakraWV pic.twitter.com/6lLD8yVoY9

— BBC Breakfast (@BBCBreakfast) May 26, 2026

…they haven’t decided what “action” yet, exactly but it’s definitely going to happen.

The Guardian has a handy list to choose from, including but not limited to:

– social media bans
– “digital curfews”
– “function limitations”
– age gating “addictive features”
– protecting children from personalised algorithms
– enforcing screen time limits.

Which one will it be?

Well let me answer that question with another question – Who cares?

The powers that be certainly don’t.

This is very much an “any colour you want so long as it’s black” situation.

Choose an outright ban – “Great, please submit your ID to prove you’re over 16 and exempt from the social media ban.”

Choose screen time limits – “Great, please submit your ID to prove you’re over 16 and exempt from screen time limitations.”

Choose digital curfews – “Great, please submit your ID to prove you’re over 16 and exempt from the digital curfew.”

Since all the proposed measures rely on age verification for enforcement, they all achieve the end goal: No more online anonymity, for kids or adults alike.

Debating the list is pointless, and making a choice counterproductive. It’s like choosing the colour of your electric chair: It makes no difference to the end result, but your entirely cosmetic choice lends tacit approval of the whole process.

We all know where this is going: Age gating everything, everywhere and then – eventually – digital ID.

It’s just…

…and you’re left wondering, who is this even for?

What is the point of this worn-out, unenthusiastic propaganda?

We know what they’re going to do, they have said they’re going to do it, and still they feel the need to play out this performative umming and erring.

Just get on with it.

All the people who don’t believe them will NEVER believe them, and all the poor fools who do believe them will always believe them.

So why carry on this absurd pretense?

It’s like when you’re watching a really dull movie – one that has telegraphed its “clever twist” in the first ten minutes – but is still insisting on dragging out the run time for two more hours of what the writers evidently consider skillful foreshadowing.

Or when you get a call from an unknown number, and some eager breathless voice announces “this is not a sales call”, before launching into a fifteen minute speech about double glazing or solar panels, and you’re just waiting for a pause long enough to say “no thanks”, and hang up.

It is a sales call, and you’ve known that from the beginning, and they know you know, but they can’t stop talking because then you’ll leave. They have to keep talking because they know you’re not listening.

So maybe that’s the answer. Maybe they can’t take a breath because people will hang up.