Five months after Australia introduced a law banning social media access for children under 16, the United Kingdom announced a similar restriction for the same age group. Several other countries, including France, Norway, and even some U.S. states, have also proposed or implemented measures requiring parental consent or stricter age verification for young users. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the UK’s decision in a video statement, stating his government is taking the step for children’s safety and happiness. Speaking from the perspective of both a parent and leader, he acknowledged that the decision would face resistance, but he argued that many nations are moving in the same direction. UK PM’s Statement “Every parent wants the best for their kids. And that’s what being a parent means. For my two kids, all I have ever wanted, hand on heart, is for them to be safe and for them to be happy. The rest is up to them. “But when I was growing up, I think we had it easier. These days, children have to find their feet in a world that changes so quickly, where technology intrudes into every area of their lives. And we know that it harms them. “The response from parents during the consultation has been absolutely clear. Thousands of parents say their children are addicted to social media. It can leave them trapped in a cycle of endless scrolling that displaces play, sleep, and time with family. It can harm their mental health. “That is why today the Government has decided to ban social media access for children under 16. It’s a big step for our country. We haven’t rushed into it—we have looked carefully at the evidence and will continue adapting our approach as technology changes. “We have learned from other countries taking similar steps. This decision will face resistance from some of the most powerful companies in the world, but we will take them on because the need for action could not be clearer. Social media is making our children unhappy and unsafe. As a parent, as much as Prime Minister, I cannot let that continue. Our children deserve a happy and safe childhood in a stronger, fairer Britain.” Teen Mental Health and Social Media Social media has increasingly become part of the global mental health debate, affecting users of all ages. For children and teenagers, however, experts argue that the risks are often greater because they are more vulnerable to online scams, cyberbullying, harmful content, and excessive screen time. Several studies suggest that passively scrolling through curated social media feeds without meaningful interaction can negatively affect mood and overall well-being. Research also indicates that nighttime social media use is associated with poorer sleep quality, increased anxiety, and higher levels of depression among adolescents. Current usage data shows that YouTube dominates the teenage demographic, reaching more than 95% of teens. TikTok follows with approximately 70% usage, while Instagram and Snapchat each maintain engagement rates of around 60%. In contrast, Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) have experienced a steady decline in teen popularity. Is a Ban the Complete Solution? The debate, however, raises an important question about young people aged 17 to 24. This group is among the most active social media users, often maintaining accounts on four or five different platforms and spending more than two hours online per day. If teenagers are prohibited from using social media until they turn 16 or 17, what happens when they suddenly gain unrestricted access? Could delayed exposure lead to greater curiosity, stronger addiction, or increased vulnerability rather than healthier habits? Another challenge is that Generation Alpha is increasingly spending time on platforms such as Discord and online gaming communities rather than traditional social media sites like Facebook or X. But many governments proposing social media restrictions have not introduced comparable regulations for these highly engaging digital spaces. The Bigger Question The real issue may not simply be whether Generation Alpha should use social media. Digital platforms are already deeply integrated into education, communication, and entertainment. The more important question is whether governments should rely primarily on bans or invest more heavily in digital literacy, parental guidance, and online safety education. Restrictions may reduce exposure during childhood, but awareness, responsible usage, and critical thinking skills could prove more effective in preparing young people for a digital world they will inevitably enter. Ultimately, protecting children online may require not only regulation but also education—teaching them how to navigate social media safely rather than simply keeping them away from it. Sources How Social Media Really Impacts Teen Mental Health | Psychology Today Social Media Demographics: Where Different Age Groups Spend Their Time Online – Cherry Grove Creative https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/2066421329859936656?s=20
By Suzzy Majumder
LinkedIn is easy to mock because it often feels ridiculous. Feeds are lined with posts of people claiming corporate prestige with saturated jargon that no one really understands. Layoffs become “new chapters”, and desperation is portrayed as being “open to new opportunities”. Ordinary employment is narrated as a moral awakening, with those who can’t follow the cryptic lexicon as simply not being on their level. The language is so polished it begins to feel inhuman, as if every post is passed through a motivational filter and carefully stripped of any real insight. But the absurdity of LinkedIn is not the most interesting thing about it. The surface-level jeering about its content and audience – while amusing – overshadows the more serious question of why people feel compelled to perform this way at all. In the United States, work has never been just a job. One’s profession has been treated as evidence of character, discipline, education, and personal worth. LinkedIn takes this philosophy and gives it a platform and a name. It repackages the worker into a public profile, an SEO project, and hosts a space to permanently market employability. It seems the point is not just being suited or capable for the job, because having the right requirements and a well-established CV is outdated in this age of corporate recruitment. Instead, you need to accompany this with a digital, legible mandate with at least 500 connections, or else who are you? The platform is the epitome of late-stage capitalism. It not only connects people to jobs, but it also teaches people how to behave in a labour market where employability itself is theatrical. In 2025, LinkedIn reported 1.2 billion members globally and $17.8 billion in revenue, a staggering amount in any case. Following suit with many other social platforms, they have introduced new AI tools for job seekers, hirers, and sales. This is important because not only do you have to perform within this stagnant job market, but you are also judged on this by AI. Reuters reported that LinkedIn’s AI hiring agents were projected to bring in $450 million annually by “helping” recruiters identify suitable profiles across the network. This shifts the focus entirely. In this respect, the game is no longer about experience; it’s about SEO and corporate literacy. The worker is not simply applying for jobs. They are processed as a signal, not a human; transformed into a set of keywords, a network, and a history of ambition within the confines of AI-approved jargon. The introduction of AI in workplaces across the U.S. has undeniably reduced job openings and is now cutting into the recruitment sector. Not only did you lose your job to AI, but you were denied your next one because you didn’t meet the lexical quota. To Karl Marx, this advent is unsurprising. He argued that capitalism turns labour power itself into a commodity: the worker must sell their capacity to work in order to survive. LinkedIn expertly shows how far that logic has travelled and how conceited the job market has become. The worker is no longer selling only time, skill, or effort. They are expected to sell personality, resilience, digital consistency, network capabilities, and a narrative of constant self-improvement. One becomes part of the package. This commodification is the real poison of the platform. It makes the crisis of work, or lack thereof, a flaw of self-presentation. If you cannot get a job, the implied solution is to optimise your profile. If nobody replies, message better. If you are invisible, post more. If none of the above work, you can buy an “affordable” subscription of around $40 a month to help boost your presence. The subscription becomes even darker when it’s realised that visibility has become monetised. Of course, capitalism and the ruling class have always understood this premise, as has society. But LinkedIn has attempted to remove these barriers in a way that fills its own pocket instead. The premium subscription advertises AI-powered tools for job searches and profile optimisation, along with InMail, profile view numbers, personalised insights, and access to “top applicant” jobs. There is something dystopian about a labour market in which workers are already forced to compete for attention, then offered, as a necessity, a plethora of paid tools to become more visible in the competition. These class politics are not subtle. Despite LinkedIn’s attempts to profit from class visibility, they present as a neutral space for opportunity. They reward those who already understand the architecture of professional culture, and who have polished profiles, institutional confidence, internship language, and established networks. A working-class person may boast intelligence, be capable, reliable, and perfectly suited for a role, yet still be punished for not knowing how to read themselves in the approved style. Pew Research Centre found that LinkedIn’s use in the U.S. is sharply divided by education. In 2024, a report showed that 53% of Americans with at least a bachelor’s degree said they use LinkedIn. This compares sharply to the 28% who have attended college but have not obtained a bachelor’s degree. Lastly, there were 10% of those who had high school degrees or less. This disparity paints an illustrative picture. If LinkedIn becomes part of how opportunity is accessed, then paradoxically, the unequal access to LinkedIn’s culture becomes yet another class barrier. This is why LinkedIn is not just bad, it’s an active obstacle for those trying to find work in modern society. It is bad because it reveals a labour market that increasingly demands shallow performance. It is bad because it asks people to translate fear into marketable self-growth and instability into ambition. It turns structural insecurity into an expensive subscription. The cruellest part is that opting out becomes even harder. Online resources are more essential than ever for American job seekers. Pew found that as early as 2015, a large majority of recent US job seekers had solely used online resources to look and apply for work. The point is that digital presence has
By Adia May
If you’ve been on the internet at all over the past two years, you’ve probably heard the word “brainrot.” Colloquially, “brainrot” is a collection of social media slang and content such as “6-7,” “rizz,” “gyatt,” “skibidi,” “fanum tax” etc., even expanding to “Italian Brainrot” which refers to specific characters such as “Ballerina Capuccina,” “Tung Tung Tung Sahur,” etc. This type of content is associated with short-form videos, AI-generated content, and doomscrolling and the harmful psychological effects it has, especially on the younger generation. According to Oxford University Press, “brainrot” is broadly defined as “the supposed deterioration of a person’s mental or intellectual state, especially viewed as the result of overconsumption of material (now particularly online content) considered to be trivial or unchallenging.” This content is deemed unchallenging because it relies on repetitive slang that lacks any actual meaning. For example, if you ask a sixth grader what “6-7” is, they will not have an answer for you, because it does not actually mean anything. “Brainrot” is particularly associated with Gen Alpha: those born between 2010 and 2024. It’s no secret that devices have become heavily integrated into our lifestyles, and that this is especially true for Gen Alpha, who grew up with an unprecedented exposure to technology. Across the United States, teachers have expressed their worries regarding the behavior and educational progress of these children. According to The Annie Casey Foundation, only 30% of Gen Alpha fourth graders read proficiently as of 2024. In the classroom, iPads and computers have become mainstream, even in elementary schools; written assignments and textbooks seem to have become a thing of the past. Short-form content and a dependence on constant stimulation from devices has resulted in a severe lack of focus and decreased attention spans, which has posed serious issues in schools. Furthermore, concerns about plagiarism and cheating have reached an alarming high, as students offload even the most basic assignments to Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT. Yes, the internet can be a great resource for information and learning, but this is not the case when it comes to the majority of short-form content, such as what Instagram reels and TikTok mostly consists of. However, the truth is that “brainrot” in our society goes deeper than just Gen Alpha internet slang on social media. Make no mistake, the critical thinking crisis is not exclusive to our youth. It seems like thought-provoking media is near extinct, either removing nuance through oversimplification, watering down the supposed “message,” or lacking any message at all. This isn’t to say that there is no value in entertainment that provides people an escape from their everyday lives; the issue appears when the vast majority of content does not require any type of intellectual activity to consume it. In fact, movies, television, and art can be an excellent way to present new ideas and provoke discussion. However, we cannot ignore the fact that modern media often enables us to bypass critical thinking, instead of prompting it. Additionally, due to the addictive nature of social media algorithms, adult internet users (intentionally or not) can easily slip into reliance on social media content to feed them information and tell them what they should care and not care about. Consuming a constant stream of content, especially low quality content, can lead to a dependence on instant gratification and a shorter attention span. As a result, people become less inclined to think critically, and more inclined to continue to consume the content they have become accustomed to. Consequently, deciding on things as simple as what to wear, what to eat, etc. are outsourced to the algorithm. In other words, you don’t need to think when your favorite content creator does it for you. Furthermore, there is an ongoing trend of being “nonchalant” on social media, through which people are encouraged to avoid thinking about things that challenge their existing beliefs or provoke negative feelings. This apathy toward discomfort is incredibly dangerous, as it discourages thoughtfulness and empathy toward the issues that require it the most, instead enabling people to dismiss things as “not that deep.” This has a vast array of negative effects on things from political participation to relationships. As technology becomes more and more influential in people’s lives and artificial intelligence becomes increasingly accessible, it is imperative for us to be cognizant of how it affects our distinctly human ability to think critically. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole
By Madeleine Harp
Follow Us