The Office of the Children’s Commissioner for Jersey (OCCJ) has concerns about the recent announcement by the UK Government to introduce a ban on social media use for children under the age of 16.

While we recognise the very real and serious harms that children can face in online environments, we do not consider a blanket ban on social media to be the most effective or rights‑compliant response. We are also seeking clarity on the implications of this policy for children in Jersey.

A children’s rights approach

Our position is rooted in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which applies equally in the digital environment. As set out in the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s General Comment No. 25, children’s rights to protection, participation, development and access to information must be respected, protected and fulfilled both online and offline. 

Digital spaces are a central part of children’s lives. They provide opportunities for communication, learning, self‑expression and participation in society.

At the same time, children face serious and genuine risks online, including exposure to harmful content, exploitation, and harmful design features.

A rights‑based response must therefore strike a careful balance between all these factors: protecting children from harm while also respecting their rights to access information, participation, privacy and development (Articles 3, 12, 13, 16 and 17 of the UNCRC).

Why a blanket ban is not the right answer

Evidence and emerging international consensus suggest that age‑based bans alone are unlikely to make children safer. Research and policy positions from the Scottish and Welsh Children’s Commissioners, for example, warn that such restrictions are not, on their own, effective or proportionate, and may instead push children towards less regulated and potentially more harmful online spaces.

• The Children and Young People’s Commissioner for Scotland has concluded that a ban on under‑16s is not currently a “proportionate, effective, or enforceable way to protect children’s rights”, and risks pushing children into less regulated and potentially more harmful online spaces.
• The Children’s Commissioner for Wales has similarly emphasised that the issue is not simply whether children should access social media, but whether those environments are safe in the first place, warning that: “Evidence from children shows that harms are not limited to a narrow group of platforms, and that young people will often find ways to navigate around restrictions where digital life is so important to them. There is a real risk that activity could shift into less visible or less regulated spaces if the focus is too narrow.”

These positions are also reflected more widely across international children’s rights bodies and frameworks:

·         The United Nations (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) has stated that “blocking children from social media is no substitute for making platforms safe in the first place”, emphasising that harms arise from platform design choices and that bans risk pushing children towards less visible and potentially more harmful digital spaces.

·         General Comment No. 25 makes clear that children’s rights must be realised within the digital environment, requiring states to regulate and design digital spaces in ways that enable safe participation, rather than excluding children altogether.

These positions reflect a growing international view that bans risk shifting responsibility away from the companies that design and profit from these platforms.

Where responsibility should lie

A clear and consistent principle across children’s rights bodies is that responsibility must sit with those who create and control digital environments.

Technology companies:

• design the systems that shape children’s online experiences
• determine how content is promoted and moderated
• profit from children’s engagement with their platforms

It is therefore essential that platforms are safe by design and by default, as envisaged in international standards and European frameworks.

This includes:

• removing or redesigning harmful features (such as addictive algorithms and harmful recommendation systems)
• robust moderation and prevention of harmful content
• strong protections against contact from unknown adults
• age‑appropriate environments that recognise children’s evolving capacities

Government must ensure that regulation focuses on systemic change, and that the burden is not placed on children, parents or schools.

Children’s rights must remain central

Children are not simply passive recipients of protection – they are rights‑holders.

Measures that restrict access must always be assessed against the full range of children’s rights, including:

• the right to be heard (Article 12)
• the right to access information (Article 17)
• the right to freedom of expression (Article 13)
• the right to privacy (Article 16)
• the right to development and social connection (Article 6)

International evidence shows that social media can be particularly important for some groups of children, including those who are isolated, disabled or seeking community and support.

A blanket ban risks disproportionately affecting these children.

The importance of listening to children

A consistent theme in our office’s interactions with children and young people of all ages, and across international research and guidance in general, is the necessity of meaningful child participation in decisions that affect them.

This is particularly relevant in Jersey.

It is now approximately one year since the previous Government took the decision to pursue restrictions on children’s access to mobile phones during school hours. That decision was taken with little evidence of meaningful consultation with children and young people, despite the profound impact such measures have on their daily lives. Should the Government of Jersey consider a social media ban, it is imperative that children are able to exercise their right to participate in decisions that affect them, most specifically those under the age of 16, who will be most affected.

From a children’s rights perspective, this is a significant concern.

Our position

The OCCJ’s position is therefore clear:

• A blanket ban on social media for under‑16s is not the most effective, proportionate or rights‑compliant way to protect children.
• It risks diverting responsibility away from technology companies, where it properly belongs.
• It may undermine children’s rights to participation, expression, and access to information, while failing to eliminate harm.

Instead, we call for:

1. A move for stronger regulation of platforms, led by government, ensuring child‑safe design by default.
2. Clear accountability for technology companies.
3. Comprehensive child rights impact assessments for any proposed measures.
4. Meaningful, ongoing participation of children and young people in all decisions affecting their digital lives.
5. Balanced approaches that both protect children and enable them to safely benefit from the digital world.

Conclusion

Children have the right to be safe – but also to be heard, to participate and to benefit from the opportunities that the digital world offers.

The challenge is not whether children should be in the digital world.

It is whether the digital world is designed in a way that respects, protects and fulfils their rights.