TeaThe UK government’s first guidance on the use of tablets, smartphones and other screens by young children, expected in April, cannot come soon enough. The laissez-faire approach is arguably no less appropriate for the boom in social media, handheld devices, and other digital technology than it was when such machines were exposed to children. Education Department continues 2020 children read found that 98% of two-year-olds look at screens for more than two hours on a typical day. Those who spent the most time alone had smaller vocabularies, and were twice as likely to show signs of emotional and behavioral difficulties as other children.
Correlation should not be mistaken for causation. This is still a relatively new area of research, and much remains uncertain. But the findings of a recent survey by the charity Kindred Squared, along with comments from teachers, are deeply worrying. Responses from 1,000 primary-school staff revealed that 37% of four-year-olds arrived in 2025 without basic life skills such as dressing and eating – up from 33% two years earlier.
Some of these may have additional requirements. And there is no suggestion from the charity that screens are the only issue. The stress caused by the high cost of living, cuts to local early years services and other factors affects the quality of life of the youngest children. But many teachers, along with one of their unions, NASUWT, believe the impact of screens must be addressed, with parents as well as children encouraged to prefer books and bricks over swipes and clicks.
The World Health Organization recommends that children under two years of age should not use screens at all. But even if such prohibitions are unlikely to be heeded by the majority, ministers could still be more ambitious in terms of the precautionary approach. The importance of early speech, communication and emotional development should be clearly explained, and parents should be given support when needed.
Since the nudity on Grok sparked global outrage earlier this month, and the ease with which such images could be shared on X, the debate around regulation has changed dramatically. In recent days, Kemi Badenoch has pushed her party behind a 16-year age limit for social media apps, following Australia’s example. Due to the sympathy of many Labor MPs, the government is under pressure to agree.
Those pushing for stricter rules are right that the existing rules are full of loopholes. Age verification should have been started soon. Addictive features should never be allowed on children’s accounts. But the current rise in concerns risks entangling the issues in a race to score political points. When considering screens and preschool children, an important question is what other activities (books, toys, ballgames) are being replaced, and why it matters. Different calculations are included to measure the impact of social media and smartphones on teenagers. Nudification apps are a different problem. It could be argued that the new focus on under-16s risks distracting from the more general threat posed by sexually explicit AI-generated content.
Ofcom’s swift response to the Grok/X nudification outrage is welcome. Politicians and campaigners may be right that social media use should be restricted for young people under 16. Warnings about screens and children should be heeded. The overarching message of the past few weeks is that democratic oversight of the tech industry needs to be stepped up.
-
Do you have any opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email for consideration for publication in our Letters section, please click here.
