
Social media curfews for children WON'T work - and could even create divides in friendships and lead to isolation, experts warn
Ministers are considering implementing an 'app cap', to reduce teenagers' exposure to harmful online content.
However, scientists have told MailOnline that there is no evidence to suggest these restrictions will have any positive effects.
In fact, such restrictions could actually harm children by increasing isolation and facing more social problems during the day, the experts say.
Technology Secretary Peter Kyle suggested children's social media time could be cut down by law to two hours per day outside of school time and before 10 pm.
Studies have shown that using social media shortly before going to bed can lead to poor sleep patterns, falling academic achievement, and poor mental health.
While that might make a curfew appealing, the scientific evidence suggests that curfews don't actually help children reduce their screen time or get more sleep.
Professor Peter Etchells, an expert on the effects of digital technology from Bath Spa University, told MailOnline: 'If we're worried that social media is harmful, bans don't fix those problems - they just delay access.'
The idea of a social media curfew has been raised as a possible solution to the serious harms that can be caused by excessive social media use.
A study of nearly 10,000 teenagers aged between 13 and 16 found that excessive social media use disrupts positive activities like sleep while increasing exposure to harmful content, especially in the form of cyberbullying.
This can lead to teenagers experiencing increased anxiety, depression, falling grades and even physical health issues.
A recent survey conducted by BSI found that 50 per cent of British young people felt that a social media curfew would improve their lives.
Likewise, there is very strong evidence that taking breaks from social media can have pronounced positive impacts.
Dr Rachel Kent, a leading digital health expert from King's College London and host of the podcast Digital Health Diagnosed, told MailOnline: 'There is a wealth of evidence that suggests restrictions and boundaries can be incredibly beneficial.
'Short periods of time away from our devices can drastically reduce the stress and anxiety that comes from increased screen time.'
Dr Kent says that the curfew would be a 'good thing' because it signals to children that they need to have boundaries in their relationship with technology.
However, as Dr Kent acknowledges, a curfew would be extremely difficult and highly impractical to implement at a national level.
It isn't clear how the Government intends to enforce any proposed curfew, but it is likely that many 'digitally native' children would find a way around any restriction.
In 2011, South Korea implemented the 'shutdown law' which prevented under-16s from playing online video games between midnight and 6am.
Years later, research showed that children were only getting 1.5 minutes of extra sleep per night and had simply shifted their online activity to other points in the day, leading to the ban being repealed in 2021.
Professor Etchells says: 'It's not clear that it had any positive effect, even though at face value it feels like it should work.
'I think curfews feel like they are a good solution, but we don't have good evidence to suggest that they would work in the way that we want them to.'
Recently, a Youth Select Committee report on the effects of social media found that social media bans were 'neither practical nor effective'.
Experts have also raised concerns that a ban might create inadvertent consequences that cause more harm than good.
WHAT ARE THE GUIDELINES FOR CHILD SCREEN TIME?
There are no official guidelines for screen time limits. But there are calls for interventions to be put in place due to growing concern about the impact of screen time, and social media use, on the mental health and well-being of young people.
The Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health and American Association of Pediatrics give guidance for parents:
For children younger than 18 months, avoid use of screen media.
Parents of children 18 to 24 months of age who want to introduce digital media should choose high-quality programming, and watch it with their children.
For children ages 2 to 5 years, limit screen use to 1 hour per day of high-quality programs.
Parents should view media with children to help them understand what they are seeing.
Designate media-free times.
Social media expert Rhea Freeman told MailOnline: 'For everything that's bad about social media, there are many good things too- finding like-minded people, chatting to friends, connection to family.
'Restrictions could potentially create divides in friendships and lead to isolation if people's allocated usage doesn't line up, I could see this being an issue.'
Likewise, studies conducted among university students found that interventions designed to limit social media use led to negative effects like fear of missing out (FOMO).
However, experts' biggest concern with the potential curfew is that this restriction doesn't solve the underlying problem of harmful content on social media
As Professor Etchells points out, bans and curfews only delay access to social media rather than making the internet any safer for children.
The Online Safety Act has passed into law, and from this year will require tech platforms to follow new Ofcom-issued codes of practice to keep users safe online, particularly children.
However, experts say that adding a curfew won't solve the gaps and weaknesses of this regulation.
Dr Kent says: 'I would argue that the curfew misses the point. The point is about making sure that the tech companies are taking accountability for the circulation of harmful content, moderating it, censoring it.
What is the Online Safety Act?
The Online Safety Act is a set of laws intended to protect children online.
The act places a duty of care on online platforms, making them responsible for protecting users from harmful content.
Sites must take measures to remove harmful or misleading content and change their algorithms to avoid sharing pornography and material promoting suicide or eating disorders
They will also be required to introduce 'highly effective' checks to block under-18s accessing age-restricted sites.
Ofcom has the power to fine technology firms up to £18 million or 10 per cent of their global revenue if they breach their duties under the landmark Online Safety Act.
However, the act has been criticised for not doing enough to keep children safe from addictively designed apps.
'Tech companies need to be held to account and the government needs to be enforcing this.'
Mr Kyle was asked on Sunday morning whether he would look at limiting the time children spend on social media to two hours per app after the Sunday People and Mirror reported the measure was being considered by ministers.
'I'm trying to think how we can break some of the addictive behaviour and incentivise more of the healthy developmental… and also the good communicative side of online life,' Mr Kyle told the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg show.
This came after the government was criticised by the father of a teen who took her own life after viewing harmful content.
Mr Ian Russell, whose 14-year-old daughter Molly died in 2017, said that 'sticking plasters' would not solve the problem of harmful content online.
Andrew Burrows, CEO of the Molly Rose Foundation, told MailOnline: 'It's welcome to hear Peter Kyle look to strengthen online safety protections, but these measures would not change the dial on the harmful content that continues to be bombarded at children.
'Unless Ministers fix the structural issues that have hamstrung the Online Safety Act, even if it is effective at reducing time spent on platforms, a code of practice on addictive design will be just another sticking plaster.'
What experts would like to see instead is more focus on educating children and carers on how to stay safe online and manage their own social media usage.
Children should be taught how to recognise harmful content online and know what to do when they encounter it, the experts argue.
Professor Etchells says: 'What we need to be talking more about is how we better prepare children and young people for a world saturated with technology.
'Hard-and-fast bans don't have much weight of evidence behind them to support them.
But we do know that talking to kids, developing their digital literacy and resiliency skills, developing their communication skills and support networks - these are things which will lead to more sustainable long-term outcomes.'
The Department for Science Innovation and Technology has been contacted for comment.
Children as young as two are using social media, research from charity Barnardo's has suggested.
Internet companies are being pushed to do more to combat harmful content online but parents can also take steps to alter how their children use the web.
Here are some suggestions of how parents can help their children.
Both iOS and Google offer features that enable parents to filter content and set time limits on apps.
For iOS devices, such as an iPhone or iPad, you can make use of the Screen Time feature to block certain apps, content types or functions.
On iOS, this can be done by going to settings and selecting Screen Time.
For Android, you can install the Family Link app from the Google Play Store.
Talk to your children
Many charities, including the NSPCC, say talking to children about their online activity is vital to keep them safe.
Its website features a number of tips on how to start a conversation with children about using social media and the wider internet, including having parents visit sites with their children to learn about them together and discussing how to stay safe online and act responsibly.
There are tools available for parents to learn more about how social media platforms operate.
Net Aware, a website run in partnership by the NSPCC and O2, offers information about social media sites, including age requirement guidance.
The World Health Organisation recommends parents should limit young children to 60 minutes of screen time every day.
The guidelines, published in April, suggest children aged between two and five are restricted to an hour of daily sedentary screen time.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves to take aim at environmental protections in bid to speed up infrastructure projects, say reports
Rachel Reeves is preparing to strip back environmental protections in an attempt to accelerate infrastructure building and boost the economy, according to reports. The chancellor is considering major reforms that would make it more difficult for wildlife concerns to hold up developments, according to The Times. Treasury officials are said to be drafting another planning reform bill, the publication reported. The move reportedly involves tearing up parts of European environmental rules, which developers have argued slow down crucial projects. While Labour ministers have previously insisted their current planning overhaul would balance growth with nature, Ms Reeves is understood to believe that the government must go further. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill going through Parliament overrides existing habitat and nature protections, which, if passed, would allow developers to make general environmental improvements and pay into a nature restoration fund that improves habitats on other sites. But Ms Reeves is considering more contentious reforms that are likely to trigger further backlash from environmental groups, according to The Times. Among the changes under discussion are plans for a smaller, UK-only list of protected species, which would give less weight to wildlife considered rare across Europe but relatively common in Britain, The Times said. Ms Reeves is also reportedly considering abolishing the EU 'precautionary principle' that forces developers to prove projects will have no impact on protected natural sites. Instead, a new test would assess the risks and benefits of building. The chancellor is also exploring limits on legal challenges from environmental campaigners. Speaking to the House of Lords economic affairs committee last month, Ms Reeves said: 'The reason that HS2 is not coming to my city of Leeds anymore anytime soon, is because I'm afraid, as a country, we've cared more about the bats than we have about the commuter times for people in Leeds and West Yorkshire, and we've got to change that, 'Because I care more about a young family getting on the housing ladder than I do about protecting some snails, and I care more about my energy bills and my constituents than I do about the views of people from their windows.' High-profile examples of costly protections include the £100m Buckinghamshire 'bat tunnel' built to protect wildlife from HS2 trains and the so-called 'fish disco' at Hinkley Point C nuclear plant, which uses sound to deter fish from cooling system intakes. The existing Planning and Infrastructure Bill already proposes a 'nature restoration fund' under which developers could offset environmental damage by paying for conservation schemes elsewhere. But the bill has faced criticism from both environmental groups and developers, who fear it will fail to speed up construction. Paul Miner of the countryside charity CPRE told The Times that targeting habitats regulations would 'take us backwards rather than forwards on nature recovery'.


Times
3 hours ago
- Times
Rachel Reeves to cut ‘bats and newts' in boost to developers
Rachel Reeves is preparing to strip back environmental protections in an effort to boost the economy by speeding up infrastructure projects. The chancellor is considering reforms that would make it far harder for concerns about nature to stop development, which she insists is crucial to restoring growth and improving living standards. The Treasury has begun preparing for another planning reform bill and is thinking about tearing up key parts of European environmental rules that developers say are making it harder to build key projects. Labour ministers have repeatedly insisted that their current planning overhaul will not come at the expense of nature, promising a 'win-win' system where developers will pay to offset environmental damage. But Reeves is understood to believe that the government must go significantly further, after expressing frustration that the interests of 'bats and newts' are being allowed to stymie critical infrastructure. She has tasked officials with looking at much more contentious reforms, which are likely to provoke a furious backlash from environmentalists and cause unease for some Labour MPs. A smaller, UK-only list of protected species is being planned, which would place less weight on wildlife — including types of newt — that is rare elsewhere in Europe but more common in Britain. Developers would also no longer have to prove that projects would have no impact on protected natural sites, under plans that would abolish the 'precautionary principle' enshrined in European rules. Instead, a new test would look at risks and benefits of potential projects. Further curbs to judicial review are also being considered by Reeves to stop key projects being delayed by legal challenges from environmentalists. No decisions have been made, but work is underway and Treasury sources acknowledged there was a growing belief that the government needed to go further, as Reeves says she wants to make boosting Britain's sluggish productivity the centrepiece of her autumn budget. She argued this week that building more infrastructure such as roads and railways were crucial to this aim. A Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently going through parliament attempts to encourage development through a 'nature restoration fund' through which developers will be allowed to press ahead with projects by setting up schemes elsewhere to offset their environmental impact. • The grid is struggling — and our green future hangs in the balance But the plan has been criticised by environmental groups while also attracting scepticism from some developers, who fear it will not work in practice and do little to speed up building. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who stood down as energy minister in May, is urging his former colleagues to go further to achieve Labour's promise of 150 major infrastructure projects. 'While I think the planning bill will work for housing, I don't think it is sufficiently focused on the major infrastructure projects, so it is encouraging that the Treasury is going to have another look at whether we've really got this right,' he said. 'The government has to face up to the tensions in the Habitat Regulations which are making it hard to build essential infrastructure and the reality is that at some point someone needs to make a hard decision and say 'on some things, you just have to press ahead'.' The rules, which incorporate the EU Habitats Directive into British law, ban killing of hundreds of species, including types of bats, news, voles, snails, spiders, insects and woodlice. Developers must prove there is no risk to protected sites and species before being allowed to go ahead with projects, under rules which critics say impose an 'impossibly high standard' on vital projects. Reeves is increasingly sympathetic to such criticism, after repeatedly hitting out at 'ridiculous' environmental protections. She said last month that she cared 'more about the young family getting on the housing ladder than I do about protecting some snails', after a speech in January in which she said developers should be able to 'focus on getting things built, and stop worrying about bats and newts'. Sir Keir Starmer has also expressed frustration with the ability of campaigners to delay projects through legal challenges, and is already introducing rules which limit judicial review to override the 'whims of nimbys'. Campaign groups and residents, who currently have three opportunities to apply for judicial review, which will be reduced to two, or one in cases deemed by a judge 'totally without merit'. Reeves is now considering allowing only one opportunity to bring any challenge. Some Labour MPs and peers want her to go further by using dedicated acts of parliament to prevent any legal challenge to specific named projects. The plans are at an early stage and are likely to cause tension with ministers in other departments who have pledged to protect the environment. Paul Miner, of the countryside charity CPRE, said targeting habitats regulations would 'take us backwards rather than forwards on nature recovery', adding: 'We urge the government to drop the worn-out 'builders versus blockers' narrative which wrongly frames climate and nature as being in conflict with economic growth.' Becky Pullinger, of the Wildlife Trusts, said maintaining environmental standards was 'essential if we are to achieve targets to protect and restore the natural world which is suffering huge declines, saying Reeves should abandon 'the myth that deregulation will lead to economic growth'. But Robbie Owen, head of infrastructure planning at Pinsent Masons, said: 'Ministers are finally realising that their rhetoric about reform doesn't match up up the reality of their bill. We have been saying to ministers and officials all year that the bill needs to go further and it seems that message has finally been heard.'


Times
4 hours ago
- Times
Trans ruling set to be big issue for SNP at next election
John Swinney's 'fear of activists' within the SNP has prevented him from implementing the Supreme Court ruling which asserts sex is defined by biology, a feminist campaign group has said. For Women Scotland (FWS) won the backing of the UK's highest court in April for its case that the legal definition of sex in the Equality Act is based on sex at birth, not by which gender people may want to be identified by. However, the SNP government has faced criticism for not implementing the ruling to enforce single-sex spaces for biological men and women in public sector services such as schools and prisons. Susan Smith, a director of FWS, which is taking the Scottish government to court for the second time over the issue, told LBC News that 'fear of activists' in the SNP was preventing ministers from implementing the ruling. She argued that its policies, including delaying implementing the ruling and making gender self-ID easier, were likely to backfire on the party in Scottish parliament elections next year. Sections within the SNP base still strongly support the policies pursued by Nicola Sturgeon, despite these now being viewed as costing the party wider public support. Swinney was 'risking making this an election issue', Smith said. John Swinney risks a lawsuit damaging him shortly before the Holyrood election next year JANE BARLOW/PA 'If we do end up going to court that will be close to the 2026 election and I cannot understand why John Swinney would want to preside over another humiliating legal defeat,' she said. Swinney had agreed to meet FWS to discuss the issue but later pulled out, saying he 'had a lot on his plate', Smith claimed. 'I think he'll be wishing had met with us,' she added. 'I don't know if the Scottish government thinks we'll get bored and go away but we won't.' The new legal action wants a court ruling on the legality of Scottish government's policies in prisons and schools. Under official guidance, men and boys who claim to have switched gender to female can enter single-sex women's spaces. The guidance also allows for biological males to compete against girls in school sports if they say they identify as female. • Hadley Freeman: Scotland is sullied by the cult of gender ideology Police Scotland became one of the first public services to exclude trans men and women from spaces such as toilets and changing rooms in offices and police stations designated for biological men and women last month. But the Scottish government is yet to update its advice to the wider public sector, including the civil service, schools and prisons, totalling hundreds of thousands of employees, saying it is waiting for official guidance from the UK-wide Equalities and Human Rights Commission. FWS said it had been left with 'little choice' but to take the Scottish government to court again after nationalist politicians refused to abandon gender self-ID policies, which the group says are now clearly in breach of the law. Formal proceedings began on Friday with the lodging of court papers. The Scottish government has 21 days to respond. The Scottish government said it would not comment on a live legal action.