Will the UK’s social media ban backfire?

Summary

Podcast Summary: Nudge with Phil Agnew

Episode: Will the UK’s social media ban backfire?
Date: July 6, 2026

---

Overview

In this episode, Phil Agnew explores the UK’s unprecedented move to ban social media usage for children under 16, announced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer. With reactions from children, psychological context, expert insights, and vivid real-world analogies, Phil dissects both the rationale and the probable effects of the ban. Will it curb harmful behavior or merely make social media more tempting? The episode dives into the science of psychological reactance, enforcement challenges, and how brands leverage similar principles to drive desire.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Details of the UK Social Media Ban (00:03–04:14)

• Nature and Scope

  • Access to Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, and X banned for under-16s.
  • Messaging apps (WhatsApp, Signal) and YouTube for Kids are exempt. Gaming itself isn’t banned, but high-risk gaming features (like stranger live streaming) are.
  • AI romantic companion chatbots outlawed for under-18s.
  • At 16, restrictions remain by default, with an opt-out for 16–17-year-olds.
  • Schools to add curriculum on recognizing deepfakes and social media safety.

• Public Reaction

  • Parents: 90% support the ban, citing concerns about “harmful content” and emotional wellbeing (03:56).
  • Young people: 2/3 agree there should be some limits, but many dislike the harshness.

2. Psychological Reactance: Why Restrictions Fuel Desire (06:03–10:15)

• “If we are told not to do something, we feel an urge to do that thing.” (Phil Agnew, 06:03)
• Reactance Study: Parental bans on romantic partners increased the children’s affection; when opposition faded, feelings waned.
• Examples:
  • 1972 Toy Study: Severe threats made children more likely to disobey (67%) compared to mild threats (29%) (08:02).
  • Australia’s Ban: Despite laws, kids circumvent restrictions; governments raise penalties for tech firms but struggle with enforcement (09:58).

3. Enforcement Problems and Realism (10:15–11:00)

• It's “quite obviously impossible” to fully enforce the ban; children can use parents’ devices or VPNs (10:15).
• Political logic: Government likens it to underage drinking—some will break the law but bans still have overall value (Keir Starmer, 10:28).

4. How Restriction Increases Allure—Brand Psychology (10:59–13:15)

• Book Experiment: Boys perceived an age-restricted book as more desirable (+14.9% in desirability) (10:59).
• Marketing Application: Brands use scarcity—Gmail’s invite-only launch, Supreme’s “drops,” and Disney’s cyclical vaulting of classic movies.
• Notable Quote:
  “It makes people pile in to those things because they are scarce, rare, and often dwindling in availability.”
  – Robert Cialdini (as shared by Phil & Keir, 13:06)

5. Phosphates Ban Analogy—Desire, Then Decline (13:15–15:44)

• Phosphates Ban (1972, Florida): After banning a detergent ingredient, consumers rating of the banned product (efficacy, scent) increased, and they bulk-bought.
• Over time, as circumvention became too much effort, use and demand faded—mirroring what Phil predicts for social media (14:01–15:44).

6. Long-Term Outcomes: Will the Ban Work? (15:44–17:32)

• Initial temptation to circumvent will be high. Kids will use VPNs, proxies, or borrow accounts.
• As time goes on, effort and isolation will make it unattractive:
  • If most peers can’t access social media, there will be less relevant content and fewer incentives.
  • “Imagine you are a 14-year-old in 10 years ... creators your age and nationality won’t be on the platform ... your friends won’t be there.” (Phil, 16:13)
• The “final nail in the coffin”: Over time, the platforms themselves will become less relevant for under-16s, not just harder to access.

7. Friction Makes Products More Alluring—Consumer Insights (17:32–22:30)

• Pistachio Analogy: The effort of opening pistachios increases enjoyment compared to shelled nuts.
• San Pellegrino & Wine Study:

  “The slight effort to get to the drink made the drink more desirable.” (Phil Agnew, 21:00)

  • Experiments show even minimal “friction” (foil lid, opening a bottle yourself) makes people rate products higher.
• Retail Experiment: Customers given small tasks (like entering a code or solving a captcha) became much more likely to claim discounts or buy (21:51).
• Key Insight: Friction, when designed cleverly, enhances the desirability of both products and, unintentionally, restricted behaviors.

8. Unique Effects of the Social Media Ban (22:30–End)

• Unlike bans on books or cigarettes, this restriction changes the product:

  “With no British children on social media, the actual content on social media will get significantly worse for British children ... The addictiveness of social media will actually decrease as time goes on. And that, in my view, will make the ban a long term success.” (Phil Agnew, 23:28)

• Over time, a feedback loop reduces both the quality and relevance of content, diminishing not only access but desire.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Keir Starmer:

  “Social media is making children unhappy. It’s making it easier for bullies ... and it could even be harming their mental health, exposing them to content that is dangerous ... It’s designed to be addictive.” (05:00)

• Phil Agnew (on psychological reactance):

  “If we are told not to do something, we feel an urge to do that thing.” (06:03)

• On circumventing bans:

  “How is the social media ban going to work when all you need is to download a VPN?” – Tyler Parsons, 16-year-old (08:02)

• Robert Cialdini (via Phil):

  “You can see that Disney does this with its classic movies ... They take them out the vault every so often ... It makes people pile in to those things because they are scarce.” (13:06)

• Consumer Insights:

  “The effort it takes to open a pistachio shell makes us enjoy the nut more. That small bit of friction ... alters perception.” (18:18)

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:03–04:14 – Introduction and Ban Details
• 06:03–10:15 – Psychological Reactance & Why Bans Backfire
• 10:59–13:15 – Scarcity in Marketing & Branding
• 14:01–15:44 – The Phosphates Ban Analogy
• 15:44–17:32 – Prediction: Will the Ban Work?
• 17:32–22:30 – Friction in Product Appeal (Pistachios, San Pellegrino, Wine, Retail Discounts)
• 22:30–End – The Unique Case of Social Media: How Content Quality Will Shape Behavior

---

Tone and Language

• Phil Agnew’s commentary is clear, conversational, science-backed, and often illustrative with relatable analogies and studies.
• The episode features a blend of policy discussion, psychological theory, real-world evidence, and light humor.

---

Conclusion

Phil Agnew delivers a nuanced analysis of the UK’s under-16 social media ban. The initial response will be heightened temptation and attempts to circumvent, fueled by psychological backlash to restriction. However, both analogies from consumer psychology and real-world historical bans suggest that, over time, the effort to evade, combined with a depleted ecosystem (irrelevant content and absent peers), will gradually diminish both access and desire. In the long run, the ban has a high likelihood of significantly reducing young people’s use of social media—potentially making it a rare example of a social restriction that fundamentally changes both behavior and the nature of the product itself.

Transcript

[Phil Agnew]

On 15 June 2026, the British Prime Minister at the time introduced a major new policy.

[Keir Starmer]

Today is a big moment for our country. This is a big step, real change for our children and our future.

[Phil Agnew]

Keir Starmer was about to announce arguably the biggest restriction on British behaviour since the indoor smoking ban of 2007.

[Keir Starmer]

Because today I can announce that the government will ban access to social media for all children under the age of 16.

[Phil Agnew]

Some children welcomed the ban.

[Various Children/Teenagers]

If it is banned then it'll be a good opportunity for us to like, finally, like go outside instead of doom scroll.

[Phil Agnew]

Some wanted more alternatives to social media.

[Various Children/Teenagers]

If they want to change something like that, they should have alternatives.

[Phil Agnew]

Other children were a bit less hopeful.

[Various Children/Teenagers]

Earlier we looked at screen time. What was your screen time over the weekend? Nine hours. Nine hours. So suddenly you're going to have a lot more time to fill. And what will you do? Stare at a wall?

[Phil Agnew]

But will the ban work? What happens when nationwide restrictions are put in place? How do these restrictions affect our psychology? And how do brands use similar restrictions to fuel their sales? All of that is coming up in today's episode of Nudge. Here's something that's happened to me a lot in using AI over the past couple of years. I've spent, you know, 20 minutes writing the perfect prompt. The output looks pretty good. It sounds, you know, authoritative, but it completely misses the point. That is what you get when AI doesn't have a clue about your business. HubSpot's AI works off your actual customer data. It looks but every interaction, every signal your team has built up over time. So rather than just prompt and cross your fingers and then start again, with HubSpot, you can ask just once and get a great result. So check out HubSpot.com, the agentic customer platform for growing businesses. Hello, you're listening to Nudge with me, Phil Agnew. Today we are looking at the UK's attempt to ban social media apps for all children under the age of 16. The ban includes some of the world's most popular social media apps.

[Various Children/Teenagers]

The Prime Minister, Keir Starmer says the ban covering Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook and X amounts to world leading action

[Phil Agnew]

messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal. They aren't included and YouTube for Kids is excluded as well. Gaming isn't included in the blanket restriction, though certain gaming features are.

[Various Children/Teenagers]

It'll remove high risk features such as live streaming with strangers being able to contact children on gaming platforms.

[Phil Agnew]

AI romantic companion chatbots will be banned for those under the age of 18 and once a child turns 16, the restrictions will remain in place by default. But those 16 and 17 year olds have an option to turn the restrictions off. Schools will also be asked to educate children on harmful content online.

[Various Children/Teenagers]

Spotting deep fakes using artificial intelligence and keeping safe on social media. Social media subjects. All school children will be taught in schools in England from September.

[Phil Agnew]

All of that came after a three month consultation with 116,000 Brits. In this consultation, well, it found that 9 out of 10 parents, 9 out of 10 backed the social media ban. That consultation also found that 2/3 of young people agreed that under 16s should not be allowed to use at least some social media platforms.

[Various Children/Teenagers]

Our consultation shows parents and children are concerned about what their being exposed to online.

[Phil Agnew]

That's Liz Kendall, the Technology Secretary.

[Various Children/Teenagers]

Harmful content, content that's completely inappropriate for their age. Abuse and exploitation. They're worried about the impact on sleep school children's physical health and their emotional well being too.

[Phil Agnew]

Because of this, the UK government are also considering overnight curfews and enforced breaks on infinite scrolling for those aged 16 and 17.

[Various Children/Teenagers]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to say maybe midnight and 6am you should be asleep if you're 16 or 17, you've got your exams coming up, you need to focus on your, on your future. We are running trials at the moment about this overnight curfew for 16 and 17 year old. It would be default on this curfew.

[Phil Agnew]

And in case it's not clear, the reason why the UK government has taken this action is because they have concluded that social media is harming children's lives.

[Keir Starmer]

Social media is making children unhappy. It's making it easier for bullies to harass and abuse them and it could even be harming their mental health, exposing them to content that is dangerous because that's what grabs the attention. It's designed to be addictive.

[Phil Agnew]

Yet as you heard at the start of the show, it is really not hard to find children who totally disagree. Many kids think the ban is a very bad idea. Here's the BBC reporting on the day the ban was announced.

[Various Children/Teenagers]

Hands up those of you who welcome the ban. Hands up for those who welcome the band.

[Phil Agnew]

There are 12 teenagers in the room. It's in Tarleton Academy, a secondary school in Lancashire. None of the children raised their hands when asked. All of them dislike the ban.

[Various Children/Teenagers]

Disappointed with the ban. Let's just come over to you, Isabella. Tell me how you felt when you heard the Prime Minister say no more social media for you. I didn't think it would actually happen. I kind of believe that he'd chicken out of it and give it more time or more consideration, but he seems pretty sure of it and I'm not sure if I agree with him.

[Phil Agnew]

But while these teenagers have a right to their opinions, their frustration is, well, it's very expected. Bans and restrictions often elicit this response. If we are told not to do something, we feel an urge to do that thing. This is known in psychology as reactance. Put simply, reactance or psychological reactance is the tendency to push back against something when you feel your freedom to choose as being restricted or taken away. There's a study from 1972 which showcases this very nicely. It's from three researchers from the University of Colorado. They interviewed 140 young, married and unmarried couples. These weren't all teenagers, but young adults aged between 16 and 20. And all of them were in a couple. They were asked about their love, their trust, and critically, if their parents endorsed the relationship. Six to 10 months later, the researchers interviewed each of the couples again. And the unmarried couples were parents who strongly opposed the relationship. Parents who said they don't think their child should be with their partner. While those unmarried couples reported significantly more romantic feelings than anybody else. But when those parental objections weakened, when the parents, after a bit of time, sort of didn't mind with their child being someone they didn't originally want them to be, with the intensity of that child's affection towards their partner reduced. In other words, we want what we can't have, whether that's a romantic partner that our parents disagrees with, or access to a social media app. And three teenagers interviewed on Sky News showcase this very nicely.

[Various Children/Teenagers]

And so I don't personally support this social media ban because I feel that it pushes the narrative that it's young people's fault that they aren't safe online, which is so untrue. Yeah, I don't really agree much, but I feel like 16 is a bit too high, I think. No, I don't think it will work.

[Phil Agnew]

I think I compare it to vaping, because under 18s are banned from vaping, but a lot of younger children do. So how is the social media ban going to work when all you need is download a VPN and young people are accessing vapes from shops? So no, I don't think it will work. That last point from Tyler Parsons, a 16 year old, is very interesting. He believes that children will try to get around the ban and I reckon he's spot on. In 1965, Professor Friedman asked 89 boys aged between 10 and seven to review five toys. Four of the toys were very ordinary Tonka tractors and plastic submarines, stuff like that. But one of the toys was an expensive battery controlled robot, a very, very alluring toy, especially back in the 60s. Midway through the experiment, the adult pretended to have an errand to run. Half the boys were given a mild threat by the adult. They were told not to play with the robot and in a mild threat the adult said it's wrong to play with the robot. The other group of boys received a much more severe threat. They were told, if you play with the robot, I'll be very angry. One group is told it's wrong to play with a robot. The other group is told, if you play with the robot, I'll be very angry. The severity of the threat changed the temptation. Only 29% of those who heard the mild threat actually went and played with the robot. But that increased to 67% of those who received the severe threat. When they're told, if you play with the robot, I'll be very angry, you're actually more tempted to play with the robot. Not only do we try and circumvent restrictions, but the stronger the restriction is, the more we want to get around it. Australia, since enforcing its own social media ban, has really struggled to keep children off social media and has just recently announced higher penalties for tech firms who break the rules.

[Keir Starmer]

Global tech giants will face tougher penalties for not complying with the under 16 social media ban as kids continue to find a way to stay online. The government declaring it's not here to play games despite not handing down a single fine since the law was introduced.

[Phil Agnew]

Enforcing a total ban on social media for 16 year olds is quite obviously impossible. What is stopping a 16 year old taking their parents phone to access YouTube? Nothing really, but the government seems to expect this.

[Keir Starmer]

Will it mean that no child ever logs onto social media again? No, but look, this might shock you, but it doesn't shock parents of teenagers. They get around other laws too. But we don't say, oh look, a teenager managed to get a drink somehow, so let's not bother banning alcohol sales to children. We don't do that, do we? That would be utterly ridiculous. And so I just don't accept that argument.

[Phil Agnew]

Children will obviously attempt to get around the ban, partly because once something is restricted, we always want it more. There's a study that proves this very nicely. It's from four Purdue University researchers and they asked 64 male participants to review a book. Half read that the book was restricted to those aged 21 years and over. The other half of boys saw no such age restriction. All other information about the book was the same. The blurb was the same, the reviews were the same, the subject matter, the front cover, all of that was the same. However, those who saw that the book had an age restriction rated the book as 14.9% more desirable, 10.5% more readable, and expected to enjoy the book 2.8% more. I wrote restricted to those aged 16 and over on the show Notes of this episode and perhaps you are enjoying today's show more because of that restriction. Brands do this all the time. They restrict access to their products to make their products more alluring. Gmail originally was invite only. You could only get an account if an existing user invited you. Supreme, a clothing brand, only sells their products in weekly drops. Once they're sold out, they're gone. But one of my favorite examples comes from Disney. In an earlier episode this year, the great Robert Cialdini, the godfather of influence, well, he told me about how Disney restricted access to their movies to make customers desire their movies more.

[Keir Starmer]

You can see that Disney does this with its classic movies like Pinocchio and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Cinderella. They take them out the vault every so often. You can now get them, and then they put them back in the vault after a period of time. You can't get them anymore. Your last chance to own Disney's ultimate fairy tale, Sleeping Beauty, no Time to Lose, and the classic musical masterpieces Fantasia and Fantasia 2000. Because on January 31, these hits are going back into the Disney vault.

[Phil Agnew]

Get them before they're gone.

[Keir Starmer]

It makes people pile in to those things because they are scarce, rare, and often dwindling in availability.

[Phil Agnew]

In his book, Cialdini explains how the attraction to restrictions has been visible throughout history. Take phosphorus in laundry detergent. Over the past five or six decades, phosphorus have slowly been banned. Phosphorus in laundry detergent causes algae to multiply across lakes, which soaks up all the oxygen and suffocates the fish.

[Various Children/Teenagers]

Phosphorus. It acts like a fertilizer for plants and algae in Spokane's rivers and lakes. And when those plants die, they suck up all the oxygen. During the decomposition, it eats up the oxygen and then the fish don't have enough to breathe.

[Phil Agnew]

In 1972, Dade county in Florida banned the sale and possession or use of washing detergent containing phosphorus.

[Various Children/Teenagers]

In less than one week, stores all over Spokane will be pulling popular detergents from their show.

[Phil Agnew]

Following the ban, researchers Mazis, Settle and Leslie interviewed 130 mothers. Half were from the banned county and another half were from a region of America, Tampa, Florida, that had no such ban. The mothers who were banned from owning the soap rated that soap higher on every single attribute compared to the mothers in a location with no ban in their minds, the soap was 15% better at removing stains. It worked 14.2% better in cold water and left cloves smelling 11.4% fresher. Once mothers heard that phosphorates were to be banned, their perception of the product changed entirely. They immediately believed it was more powerful, more potent, better quality. And it led many of them to bulk buy laundry detergent. I'm glad I have what I have.

[Various Children/Teenagers]

You're gonna stock up? I did, I bought it.

[Phil Agnew]

I think the phosphorate ban is a pretty good description of what will happen with the social media ban. Just like with the phosphates, as soon as the ban is announced, there is a real desire to circumvent it. And it'll be extremely strong. This desire. Kids will download VPNs, they will pay others to create accounts for them. They'll use third party computers to access social media content. But just like with the phosphates, after a while, circumventing the ban just becomes too much effort. In Virginia's James river, for example, phosphorus in the river dropped sharply after the ban was introduced, from a 85% level before the ban to just 13% after. These residents, they could have travelled to different regions to do their laundry and many could have bulk bought laundry detergent from different states. But after a while, they just gave up doing this. Circumventing the ban is just too much effort. It was easier to just pay a little more and get an eco laundry detergent. And I think the same will happen with the social media ban. After a few years, most children will give up trying to access social media content. Circumventing the ban would just be too much effort. But I think there's an even larger deterrent because even if a child succeeds in getting on social media, the content on the apps will have dramatically, dramatically changed. Imagine you are a 14 year old in 10 years time who manages to get on Instagram or Facebook, for example, creators your age and nationality, well, they won't be on the platform because they're banned. Your friends won't be there. And perhaps more importantly, older creators who are allowed to be on the platform, well, they would have stopped making content targeted at you because your demographic won't be on the platform anymore. And all of that, I believe will combine to remove the urge for younger audiences to join social media in the first in 10 years. A 14 year old boy who does manage to circumvent the ban will find a social media platform totally devoid of content targeted at him. Gone are the videos about Minecraft and Fortnite, gone are the memes that make him laugh. And that'll be the final nail in the coffin. The restrictions will make kids more desperate to access social media and the apps initially, but after some time, just like with the phosphates, that desire will almost certainly vanish. I think the ban will work, but I did not want to finish the episode here because there is much more to the psychology of restriction and friction. And after the break I want to cover some examples of companies that use friction to make their products slightly more alluring. All of that coming up. Making Tax Digital is now live for sole traders and landlords. If you're not using compatible software to keep digital records and submit quarterly returns, then you need to be. It's something I've been getting my head around and the Federation of Small Businesses has made it much simpler, which is one of the reasons I pay for my own membership. They offer a HM MRC recognized app plus a free one to one overview session to get you set up properly. Visit get.fsb.orguknudge or click the link in the show notes to sign up and use code nudge to get 10% off your membership. Science of Scaling, hosted by Mark Roberge, is brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network, the audio destination for business professionals. In each episode, Mark, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School, sits down with the most successful sales leaders in tech to learn the secrets, strategies, strategies and tactics to scaling your company's growth. It's a fantastic show, so go and listen to the Science of Scaling wherever you get your podcasts. Hello and welcome back. You are listening to Nudge with me, Phil Agnew. In the first half of this episode we covered the UK social media ban. I shared how bans and restrictions often have the opposite effect, making the banned substance far more attractive than before. But I also shared examples where bans still work. Despite fuelling attraction, they still defer behavior. Just look at the phosphate ban brands across Europe and America. However, brands still attempt to use friction to make their products more alluring. Take pistachio nuts. In a very unscientific experiment a few weeks back at the pub, I asked a group of my mates to rank their favourite nuts. Walnuts came in last. Nobody preferred walnuts. They were followed by Peanuts, hazelnuts and cashews who a handful of my mates preferred. But pistachios came in first. Most of my friends said their favourite nuts nut was the green shelled pistachio. This mint green nut has become a real premium product in recent years. Boutique gelato stores stock the ever popular pistachio flavours. Waitrose created a viral pistachio Easter egg and pistachio filled Dubai chocolate briefly took the world by storm. But why? There is no objective reason the flavour and texture of pistachios aren't wildly different to other nuts. You don't see many nationwide ads for pistachios and you don't hear many doctors suggesting we e eat them. The answer as to why pistachio is so popular I think lies in the shell. The effort it takes to open a pistachio shell makes us enjoy the nut more. That small bit of friction. The extra step alters perception. It's why pistachio products have multiplied in recent years. And yet you'll never find a company successfully selling shelled pistachio nuts. The small bit of friction makes the nut tastier. Friction, whether it's a social media ban, an age restriction on books or an instruction not to play with a toy, can make an object, a product or a person more alluring. We are drawn to things that are hard to get and the more effort required to get it, the more we want it. I remember when San Pellegrino first released their Limonata lemonade.

[Keir Starmer]

Make a perfect moment with San Pellegrino Essenza. The recipe is simple. One part good people, one part good food and a little Mediterranean flavor.

[Phil Agnew]

The old San Pellegrino soda had a foil lid wrapped over the can and I think that foil lid had the same effect as the pistachio shell. The slight effort to get to the drink made the drink more desirable. I heard Rory Sutherland make an interesting point about this on a recent podcast.

[Keir Starmer]

San Pellegrino. The flavored drinks actually have a foil lid on the top of the can. Rational explanation for is that it's hygiene. You can confidently drink out of the can knowing that rats didn't crawl over it in some warehouse. I bet the finance director has been trying to get rid of those things for ages. What they also mean in some strange way is that you could have 20 cans of San Pellegrino on a side table at your wedding when you couldn't do the same with 10 cans of Fanta. There's something going on there which is not simply the rational hygiene component. It changes the meaning of the drink.

[Phil Agnew]

You can't have 10 cans of Fanta at your wedding, but you can have 10 cans of San Pellegrino Aranchata. And that may partly be due to that foil lid. The slight bit of friction makes the drink more enjoyable. The same, of course, is true for wine. In 2017, Oxford professors Spence and Wang had 140 participants taste identical bottles of 2015 Malbec. But there were two conditions. Half had to physically open the bottle themselves. They had to either pull out the cork themselves or unscrew the cap. The rest simply heard the researcher open the bottle and then all tried the wine. When questioned, those who opened the bottle of Cantina Melbeck themselves rated the screw cap version as 2.8% higher in quality and the Cork top version as 1.5% higher in quality. A small amount of friction between the wine and the consumption imbued a positive perception, and I think the same is true for San Pellegrino and pistachios. The small amount of effort flips our enjoyment. And one final study before we go A tiny amount of FR even made one American coffee house more profitable. A 2025 paper in the Journal of Marketing Research offered discounts to 100,000 people across eight experiments. In one of the experiments, some cafe customers were given an automatic discount on their coffee, while others had to enter a coupon code to access that discount. Those forced to enter the code were 59.3% more likely to pop. In a follow up study, participants were required to complete a captcha form to unlock a discount for a pair of on sale shoes. And that tiny bit of friction made shoppers 154% more likely to buy than those who received the discount by default. Friction nudges us to act smart. Businesses make promotions more enticing by adding friction, and ill informed parents make a child's undesirable partner more attractive by denouncing them. But despite all that, a full scale ban will have a major impact. It won't stop every single child from accessing social media, but it will dramatically reduce the numbers of children endlessly doom scrolling. Many children will feel at first that temptation to circumvent the ban. But as time goes on, that desire will lessen. And perhaps most importantly, a social media ban does something that a smoking ban or a book band never could do. It fundamentally changes the product. With no British children on social media, the actual content on social media will get significantly worse for British children. Children won't see creators like them and adult creators will stop creating content for a demographic that are no longer online. The smoking ban didn't change the addictiveness of a cigarette once you tried it, but a social media band does because the content will become worse for children. The addictiveness of social media will actually decrease as time goes on. And that, in my view, will make the ban a long term success. Thank you so much for listening to today's episode of Nudge, folks. And thanks again to the Federation of Small Businesses for sponsoring today's episode. As I mentioned in the ad, I'm a member of the member of the FSB and I signed up with my own money before they even sponsored this show. I did so because I myself run a small business that really, really benefits from their support. As a member, I get member only discounts which have saved me literally hundreds of pounds. I'm in a community of 500,000 other businesses, but more importantly, I get legal advice. I get £100,000 worth of COVID for things like tax, investigation, protection and help with recovering debt from clients who haven't paid their invoices. As I have no employees, I pay just 195 pounds a year for my membership and I've already made that back in discounts. But if I have any legal problems, It'll be worth 10 or even 100 times more than that. So thank you again to the FSB for supporting the show. As a reminder, they have very kindly agreed to give a 10% discount to all Nudge listeners. They don't really do discount codes, so this is a genuinely good deal. It's a discount on your full year membership. So to get that discount, click the link in the show notes. You have to click that link, use the code Nudge. That's Nudge N U D G E at checkout and you'll get 10% off your first year of membership. You will not regret it. Thank you again for listening. I'll be back next Monday for another episode of Nudge. Bye bye.