Few people would argue against making the internet safer for children.
The Government’s decision to ban social media for under-16s from spring 2027 has therefore understandably been framed around protection: protection from addictive algorithms, harmful content, strangers and exploitation.
But there’s another group largely missing from the conversation. That is, the organisations already using those same platforms to protect young people.
For charities supporting children experiencing abuse, homelessness, poverty, family breakdown or other vulnerabilities, social media isn’t simply a marketing channel. Sometimes, it’s the place where a young person first discovers that help exists.
And that raises an uncomfortable question:
What if the child we’re protecting from social media is using social media to find protection?
Social media can be a route into support
Parents and children are on the same side. Some young people find themselves in dangerous or vulnerable situations without parental support; others are navigating experiences they simply don’t feel able to discuss at home. That’s where the third sector can become particularly important.
Of course, many charities have websites, phone numbers, emails, and even WhatsApp channels that remain accessible despite the ban. However, that misses something social media does particularly well: discovery.
Childline produced a campaign featuring a mix of LGBTQ+ influencers speaking about their unique and different coming-out stories. The charity deliberately used paid spend across platforms that young people already occupy online, like TikTok and Instagram. In doing so, their videos were viewed and shared over 2.2 million times, more than seven times their planned figure. They also saw a 12% increase in LGBTQ+ young people’s likelihood to contact the service. Social media officer at NSPCC, Ellana Salt, who worked on Childline’s TikTok strategy and writing for CharityComms, comments that “TikTok was the place to be”.
The important distinction here is between access and discovery.
A charity’s website might remain freely available to a 14-year-old after a social media ban. But that assumes the young person already knows the charity exists, recognises that what they’re experiencing is something they can seek help for, and actively goes looking for it.
A young person experiencing abuse, homelessness, family breakdown, bullying, exploitation, questions about their sexuality or mental-health difficulties may never think to search for a particular charity.
But they might encounter a piece of content organically and realise, for the first time, there is an organisation that helps people like me.
India Hill, Head of Marketing and Communications at Football Beyond Borders (FBB), discusses how social media currently helps the charity reach young people who might otherwise never find them:
“Passing the mic to young people is a core principle at FBB. We platform young people at events, involve them in decision-making and co-create content with them. Social media is an important extension of that approach.
TikTok in particular has become a digital community where young people can see themselves, their schools and their local areas represented and celebrated. We regularly see comments asking, “How do we get FBB at our school?”, showing that social media can introduce young people to our work in a way that feels relevant and accessible to them.
It also allows us to share the breadth of young people’s experiences: from everyday moments in their communities to transformational opportunities and personal milestones. At its best, this content gives young people the chance to see people like themselves represented positively and authentically, while showing a much wider audience what young people think, feel and are capable of.”
Will children lose their digital village?
The idea of “it takes a village to raise a child” traditionally emphasises the importance of a broader community around a young person.
But as our lives move online, some of that community now exists digitally too.
Charities are an important part of this digital village. Their social channels can provide accessible, age-appropriate information on topics that young people may not feel comfortable raising with a parent, teacher or another adult. The comments and conversations around this content can also expose young people to different perspectives and experiences, helping them realise that they are not alone in what they are going through.
For young people navigating topics that might feel embarrassing, confusing, or difficult to discuss at home, social media can offer a degree of anonymity and distance that makes asking for help feel easier.
This tension is reflected in the Government’s own consultation.
The Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology (DSIT) found that while 90% of responding parents supported a minimum age of 16, only 19% of children and young people consulted supported a blanket minimum age of 16 across all social platforms. That doesn’t mean young people reject greater protection online. The consultation found support for interventions targeting specific harmful features and behaviours, including those designed to keep children scrolling for longer.
The Government itself acknowledges that children value being online for connecting with friends, being creative and having fun, and that some charities and civil-society organisations have raised concerns about the consequences of a blanket minimum age.
When asked about what concerns FBB has around the ban, and what social media can offer young people that websites couldn’t, Hill continued:
“We recognise the legitimate concerns around young people’s safety and wellbeing online, and the case for stronger protections. Our concern is making sure that, as the digital landscape changes, we don’t lose some of the positive opportunities social media currently provides for young people to participate, connect and feel represented.
Our young people aren’t simply participants in FBB; they help shape our work and are often its strongest ambassadors and most valuable critics. Seeing their ideas, achievements or communities reflected on our channels can reinforce a sense of belonging and mattering, while connecting a group of 16 young people in one school to a much bigger national FBB community.
Social media also allows for a level of immediacy, interaction and hyper-local storytelling that a website cannot easily replicate. A simple TikTok about the best places to eat in Basildon, for example, can celebrate young people’s local identity while reaching thousands of people. The volume and informality of this content means many more young people can see themselves represented.
Our challenge will therefore be to preserve that sense of participation and community through safe and appropriate channels, rather than simply replacing social media with more one-way forms of communication.”
As the UK considers how best to protect young people online, it is worth recognising that the digital world can contain both risks and vital support networks. For charities working with vulnerable children, the challenge will be ensuring that removing one does not inadvertently deprive them of access to the other.
How will a 14-year-old who doesn’t know that Childline exists discover it?
How will a child experiencing abuse privately discover what is happening to them isn’t normal, and that there is somewhere they can turn?
These aren’t arguments against making social media safer for children. They are arguments for ensuring that the solution is designed around the realities of all children’s lives, including those for whom home isn’t necessarily the safest place to ask for help.
Government, technology companies and the third sector now have an opportunity to think about what a genuinely child-safe digital ecosystem should look like, one that doesn’t require accepting harmful algorithms or unrestricted access for trusted organisations to reach young people.
Because protecting children online shouldn’t just mean asking what we need to protect them from.
We should also be asking how we preserve what protects them now.
Looking to the future, Hill discusses how FBB’s communications and outreach will need to change before spring 2027:
“We’ll approach the transition carefully, working with young people, schools and other organisations across the youth sector while following Government and safeguarding guidance as the detail of the new arrangements becomes clearer.
For us, the key question is not simply how we replace access to particular platforms, but how we preserve what has been valuable about those spaces: young people having a voice, seeing themselves represented and feeling part of a wider community.
That may mean developing new ways for young people to contribute to and experience FBB’s storytelling without needing direct access to social media themselves. Whatever the channel, our principle will remain the same: young people should be active participants in how their stories are told, and FBB should continue to represent their experiences, ideas and ambitions faithfully to the wider world.”
