"Is There Any Meaning to a 'Curfew That Can Be Lifted'? - Social Media Regulations for Young People in the UK"

I went to bed with my smartphone in hand, intending to watch just one short video, but before I knew it, it was 1 or 2 a.m. The next morning, I couldn't shake off the sleepiness and couldn't concentrate on classes or work. Yet, when night falls, I find myself repeating the same behavior.

Such experiences are not exclusive to young people in the UK. In many countries, including Japan, the prolonged use of social media and lack of sleep have become social issues that are difficult to resolve through family attention or personal will alone.

The UK government has proposed a plan to set a "digital curfew" as a standard setting for 16- and 17-year-old social media users, stopping usage from midnight to 6 a.m. Even if they try to open social media services like TikTok or Instagram, they will be unable to use them during the late-night hours by default.

However, it is not entirely mandatory. Users can disable the nighttime restrictions by adjusting the settings themselves. Features like autoplay, infinite scrolling that displays posts continuously, and personalized feeds based on usage history will also be disabled by default, but users will be able to reactivate them if they choose.

This "regulation that can be lifted" has already sparked a debate in the UK.

A policy to change the "initial settings" rather than impose a ban

At first glance, this measure may seem half-hearted.

The UK government plans to introduce a system in spring 2027 that will generally prohibit access to major social media for those under 16. Meanwhile, for 16- and 17-year-olds, it recognizes a certain degree of self-determination, standardly disabling nighttime restrictions and highly addictive features, while allowing users to lift these restrictions themselves.

In other words, the design is to gradually expand freedom rather than abruptly removing protection at the age of 16.

The essence of this policy is not to shut young people out of the internet but to reverse the initial settings so that "if nothing is done, it will be in a safer state."

Currently, many social media platforms require users to set time limits, turn off notifications, and stop autoplay themselves. However, those who have fallen into addictive use are less likely to find and set these restriction features.

The UK proposal reverses this structure. It makes it difficult to use from the start, allowing only those who truly need it to lift the restrictions. It is a policy close to a "nudge," changing the starting point of choice rather than forcibly prohibiting behavior.

Even if it can be lifted with a few operations, not all users will necessarily do so. The hassle of changing settings or the warning message displayed when lifting the restrictions might serve as a moment to pause.

On the other hand, there remains the contradiction that young people who are truly unable to stop using might be the first to lift the restrictions.

The UK's target is not just "harmful posts"

Previous social media regulations have mainly focused on "what is being displayed," such as illegal posts, sexual content, bullying, and information promoting self-harm.

The new UK policy goes a step further, focusing on the service design itself, asking "how do users end up watching for long periods?"

Features that automatically play short videos or mechanisms where new posts appear endlessly with just a downward swipe take away a clear endpoint from users. TV shows and movies have endings, and books have final pages. However, social media feeds generally have no end.

Moreover, algorithms learn from posts users have watched for a long time, videos replayed multiple times, and topics reacted to, prioritizing content that makes it hard to leave.

The problem is not just that young people have weak willpower. It lies in the fact that some of the world's leading tech companies use vast amounts of usage data and advanced behavioral analysis to design services that are hard to step away from.

The significance of the UK government including infinite scrolling and autoplay as regulatory targets is substantial. It is not just asking users and guardians to exercise self-control but also trying to hold companies providing services accountable.

On social media, "If it can be lifted, it means nothing" stands out

When UK news programs and media introduced this policy on social media, a particularly prominent reaction was the question, "If it can be easily lifted, what is the point of the curfew?"

Comments such as "Those who are addicted will be the first to lift the settings," "Rules that can be bypassed with a few taps are ineffective," and "Isn't it just announcing a policy without effectiveness?" spread.

Reports that directly asked young people in the UK also introduced similar reactions. A 16-year-old user pointed out that if people addicted to social media can lift the restrictions themselves, the regulation loses its meaning. A 17-year-old user, while understanding the concept, questioned the limited effectiveness without enforcement.

The second reaction was criticism that "16- and 17-year-olds are being treated too much like children."

In the UK, although there are regional differences in systems, young people can work, pay taxes, and live independently from their parents at 16. Discussions about lowering the voting age are also ongoing. On the other hand, many feel a contradiction in the government trying to restrict the freedom to use social media late at night.

On social media, there were reactions like "At an age where you can work and leave home, is the government deciding when you can use your smartphone?" and "It's not the government's job to decide when to look at social media."

However, it's not all criticism.

Opinions such as "It's better to have it stopped by default because it's hard to set limits yourself," "A system that can be lifted if necessary is realistic," and "If it's only at night, the restriction on freedom is relatively small" were also expressed.

There were also questions about targeting only young people. Reactions like "Stopping infinite scrolling is necessary for adults too" and "If the design is addictive, it should be selectable regardless of age" were seen.

This is an important point. Excessive immersion in social media doesn't disappear the moment one turns 18. While starting with the protection of young people, the idea is that ultimately all users should be able to easily stop autoplay and recommendation feeds.

These are organized opinions from public posts and reports and do not represent a statistical survey of the entire UK public opinion. Nonetheless, the main issues of effectiveness, self-determination, corporate responsibility, and privacy are clearly highlighted.

Experiments show improvements in sleep and concentration

The UK government bases its policy on a trial survey conducted over about a month with 309 households, involving young people aged 13 to 17 and their guardians.

The survey tested methods such as limiting social media apps to 15 minutes a day, making them unavailable from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m., and deleting target apps from devices.

Among these, nighttime restrictions were the easiest to implement and consistently reported effects on sleep. Participants indicated changes such as going to bed earlier, improved morning wakefulness, better concentration in classes and exam studies, and increased time spent talking with family.

Some families found that the need for parents to confiscate smartphones every night or argue with their children decreased because nighttime use was automatically stopped. It is noteworthy that more families wanted to continue nighttime restrictions even after the experiment ended compared to other methods.

However, these survey results cannot be interpreted as "stopping social media will definitely lead to better health."

The survey is a qualitative study centered on participants' self-reports, with a limited sample size. It is not a large-scale randomized controlled trial that objectively measured usage history, and it cannot be directly applied to the general youth population.

Some participants started watching social media in bulk before the restrictions began, or used it intensively after the morning lift. There were cases where they switched to other devices like tablets, computers, or old smartphones, and some families did not significantly reduce their total daily usage time.

Some young people felt left out of conversations or plans with friends due to nighttime restrictions. It cannot be ignored that social media is used not only for entertainment but also as a communication network, for learning, gathering news, and as a mental diversion.

The problem of lumping everything under "social media"

The difficulty in implementing regulations lies in the ambiguous boundaries of social media.

Should features that endlessly display short videos be treated the same as those that send messages to friends? Can entertainment videos be distinguished from videos explaining exam questions? Are group chats used for school communication the same as recommendation feeds that receive posts from an unspecified number of people?

In the UK's trial survey, young people tended to perceive Snapchat more as a means of communication with friends rather than a post-viewing service. For YouTube, the nature differs between passively watching short videos and searching for specific videos for study purposes.

Stopping platforms uniformly could result in losing not only highly harmful features but also those necessary for learning and maintaining relationships.

What will be needed in the future is a system that evaluates the risk on a feature-by-feature basis rather than the idea of banning entire apps.

Restrict personalized recommendations, continuous playback of short videos, notifications that extend viewing time, and late-night push notifications by default. Meanwhile, maintain direct communication with family and friends, emergency contacts, and school learning tools. Such detailed design will be necessary.

Will age verification lead to new surveillance?

To make the system work, social media operators must know the age of their users.

A self-reported date of birth can easily be falsified. Candidates include identity verification documents, age estimation through facial images, contract information held by mobile phone companies, and third-party age verification services.

However, the stricter the age verification, the more personal information users have to provide to companies. If a system designed to protect children evolves into one that requires all users to submit identification or facial images, it could create new privacy issues.

Another UK government survey found that more than half of 11- to 17-year-olds had attempted to bypass age verification in some way, and about 40% reported having succeeded at least once. In addition to methods of falsifying age, tools to change the connection region were also used.

It is not uncommon for young people to have experience using VPNs. The purpose is not only to bypass regulations but also a strong desire to protect communication content and personal information. If stricter regulations encourage a shift to free VPNs with unclear safety, it could increase the risk of data leaks and fraud.

What is needed is not a binary choice of whether to conduct age verification or not. It is important to have a system that minimizes the information required for verification and allows users to prove only categories like "under 16," "16 or 17," or "18 and over" without directly providing names or images of identification to social media operators.

Japanese 17-year-olds use the internet for over 7 hours on weekdays

Japan cannot view this issue as a distant European affair.

According to a 2025 survey by the Children and Families Agency, the average weekday internet usage time was about 397 minutes for 16-year-olds and about 427 minutes for 17-year-olds. For 17-year-olds, this equates to about 7 hours and 7 minutes per day on average.

These figures include not only social media but also video viewing, gaming, learning, music, and searching, so not all can be considered problematic use. However, considering school life and sleep time, it is clear that online activities occupy a significant part of young people's lives.

In the same survey, 26.2% of high school students reported having experiences where they were so absorbed in the internet that they couldn't concentrate on their studies or suffered from lack of sleep. This means about one in four high school students has been aware of the negative impact on learning and sleep.

In Japan, the focus has been on household rules, filtering, information ethics education in schools, and awareness-raising for guardians.

However, there are differences in management capabilities among households. Some families have guardians who are knowledgeable about digital devices, while in others, children are more familiar with settings and avoidance methods. There are also cases where guardians work at night or where parent-child relationships are unstable.

"Please discuss it at home" cannot protect all young people.

In Japan's review meetings, there is also discussion on revising the Youth Internet Environment Improvement Act to match the times and what responsibilities SNS, video-sharing services, app stores, games, and live streaming operators should bear, not just mobile phone companies.

In Japan, there may be a growing trend to shift responsibility from users and guardians to platforms in the future.

What Japan should learn from the UK

What Japan should learn from the UK proposal is not simply to stop social media from midnight.

First, the idea of making safety features the default setting.

Stopping late-night notifications, disabling autoplay for minors, interrupting infinite scrolling, and implementing break screens at regular intervals are easier to introduce than a total ban. While leaving personal choices, small breaks can be introduced into the flow of use.

Second, regulating functions rather than platforms.

Even within the same app, the roles differ between communicating with friends and viewing recommended videos. It is necessary to focus on suppressing features that extend usage time without hindering emergency contacts or learning use.

Third, involving young people in system design.

Regulations decided only by adults are likely to provoke backlash for "not understanding our lives." It is necessary to think together with the parties involved about what time frames are acceptable, how to handle weekends and exam periods, and how to ensure communication for learning and club activities.

Fourth, creating offline spaces simultaneously with regulations.

Even if social media is stopped, without places or activities to spend time instead, it is easy to move to other video services or games. As part of digital policy, it is necessary to provide sports, cultural activities, learning support, and public facilities for young people that can be participated in regardless of family economic status.

Fifth, continuously verifying the policy's effectiveness.

Measure sleep time, concentration on learning, exposure to bullying or harmful information, feelings of isolation, regulation avoidance, and movement to less safe services, and revise the system if it is ineffective. Implementing regulations should not be the goal itself.

The question is, who designs the time for young people?