Across the globe, a quiet shift has taken place in family life.

Listen to this article

The moment a child is handed an iPad or smartphone, childhood begins to recede.

We have placed young minds into an uncontrolled experiment, pitched against the most sophisticated engineers in Silicon Valley. This debate is too often reduced to a simplistic choice: ban it, or teach children to use it “safely”. It is a false and misleading frame.

We do not ban children from driving or drinking; we set a minimum age because we recognise that some tools, however useful to adults, are harmful in the hands of children.

Social media belongs firmly in that category.

The instant a child goes online, they enter a system engineered to maximise engagement. Every swipe, every notification, every algorithmic prompt is designed to keep them hooked. This is not a neutral environment. It is a race for attention, and children’s eyes are the most valuable commodity.

From iPads linked to developmental, speech and language delays, to smartphones and social media exposing children to toxic content, distorted body ideals and the normalisation of misogyny and hate, the harms are cumulative. Social isolation deepens, face-to-face interactions decline, and popularity becomes quantifiable, turning self-worth into a public score.

When Meta introduced the “Like” button, and platforms such as YouTubeperfected endless short-form video feeds, they embedded intermittent dopamine rewards into the architecture of childhood, a behavioural design proven to drive compulsive use.

The consequences are not accidental. Excessive screen stimulation and fragmented content are reshaping attention spans, fuelling anxiety and eroding resilience at scale. This is not a passing phase; it is the systematic rewiring of a generation.

Yet organisations including the NSPCC and the Molly Rose Foundation warn that raising the minimum age to 16 would create a “cliff-edge” of risk. But if the online world is so dangerous at 16, how can exposure at 13, the current digital age of consent, be considered safer?

This is not about control. It is about protection, from predators, from harmful content, and from business models fundamentally misaligned with children’s mental health.

The damage extends far beyond what children see online. It is also about what they are losing. Free time, once the arena of adventure, resilience and real-world experiences, is being replaced by passive digital consumption. Employers now report that more than half of young people entering the workplace lack basic communication and social skills. A culture of instant gratification is reshaping their understanding of effort, reward and hard work.

We are witnessing the rewiring of human development on an almost unimaginable scale.

And we must be clear, social media is the symptom, smartphones are the gateway. Restrict one without addressing the other and children will simply route around regulation.

The responsible course is clear: no smartphones and no social media before 16. A basic phone for calls and messages is a far safer option without sacrificing childhood. Until technology companies place children’s wellbeing ahead of profit, delay is no longer optional, it is essential.

Childhood is too short to be spent scrolling. It is time to challenge the norms that are no longer serving our children and it is time to reclaim childhood.

Nova Eden is the Founder of One Collective power and a leading voice in the Smartphone Free Childhood Campaign.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk

© LBC