Of the many organizations reacting to the UK government’s proposed ban on smartphones for under-16s, the voice of Save the Children carries significant weight. As one of the nation’s most prominent and respected children’s charities, their response moves beyond simple opposition to offer a nuanced, deeply considered critique rooted in decades of child welfare experience. Jeffrey Demarco, a Senior Adviser at the charity, frames the government’s announcement as a well-intentioned but ultimately flawed reaction to legitimate and widespread societal fears. While acknowledging the profound concerns about children’s safety online that prompted the policy, Demarco warns that the proposed solution is a blunt instrument that fails to address the complex reality of digital life for young people. His primary contention is that such a sweeping ban would fundamentally “change how children access and experience the digital world,” not necessarily for the better, and that this seismic shift is being planned without the essential input of those it will affect most directly.
Demarco’s argument centers on a powerful principle: that children must be active participants in shaping policies that govern their lives. He insists that “the UK government must ensure that any decisions are informed by children themselves and by independent experts.” This is not merely a box-ticking exercise in consultation; it is a fundamental requirement for crafting effective and equitable policy. A ban devised without understanding how young people use technology for education, social connection, creativity, and identity formation risks being irrelevant at best and harmful at worst. It assumes a passive role for children, treating them as mere subjects to be protected rather than rights-holders whose voices and experiences are crucial to designing a safer digital environment. This approach risks creating rules that children will inevitably seek to circumvent, thereby undermining the very safety the ban seeks to establish.
The core of Save the Children’s concern lies in the dangerous unintended consequences of a “blanket ban.” Demarco articulates a chilling paradox: a measure that “may look protective on paper” could, in practice, “push children into less regulated spaces, where they are less likely to seek help when something goes wrong.” By driving youthful digital activity underground—onto hidden apps, secondary devices, or borrowed accounts—the ban would sever the connection between children and the guardrails, reporting tools, and parental oversight that exist, however imperfectly, on mainstream platforms. This creates a scenario where a child encountering harassment, exploitation, or harmful content is isolated, afraid to disclose their secret online activity, and thus far more vulnerable. The ban, in seeking to erase risk, may instead amplify it by stripping away visibility and support.
Furthermore, Demarco highlights that the burden of this policy will not fall evenly. He pointedly notes that “children growing up in poverty are likely to be among those most affected.” Affluent families may find ways to maintain necessary digital access for education through other devices, or may possess the resources for intensive alternative activities. For children in poverty, however, a smartphone can be a vital lifeline and a crucial tool for learning and inclusion. A blanket ban could exacerbate existing inequalities, creating a new digital divide where access to the connected world becomes another marker of privilege. The policy risks punishing the most vulnerable for the risks of the platform, rather than holding the platforms accountable for their design.
Instead of exclusion, Demarco advocates for a more sophisticated, ambitious, and ultimately more protective path: making the digital world inherently safer for children. He asserts that “if ministers want to make the online world safer, the answer is not simply keeping children off platforms.” The true focus, he argues, must be on systemic reform. This means “providing better support for parents” while simultaneously and relentlessly “making platforms safer by design.” The call is for legislation that compels technology companies to fundamentally redesign their products, moving beyond superficial parental controls to address the core architecture of risk. Demarco identifies the specific addictive and high-risk features that need urgent tackling: pervasive “stranger contact,” unmoderated “live streaming,” dangerous “nudification tools,” and untested “unsafe AI systems.”
In essence, Save the Children, through Jeffrey Demarco’s statement, is calling for a shift from a policy of digital exclusion to one of digital responsibility. The government’s role, they argue, is not to build a wall between children and the online world—a world that is integral to modern childhood—but to act as a rigorous regulator and standard-setter for that world. The goal should be to create an online environment where children can explore, learn, and socialize without being exposed to engineered harms. This is a more complex and challenging undertaking than a simple ban, requiring political will to confront powerful tech interests. However, it is the only approach that addresses the root cause of the problem, upholds children’s rights to participation and protection, and seeks to build a digital future that is safe by default, not forbidden by decree.
