The UK’s social media ban for minors.

Summary

Tangle Podcast Summary: The UK’s Social Media Ban for Minors

Podcast: Tangle
Date: June 17, 2026
Host: Ari Weitzman (Managing Editor, filling in for Isaac Saul)
Associate Editor/Co-Host: Audrey Moorhead
Episode Theme: A comprehensive, non-partisan discussion about the United Kingdom’s planned 2027 ban on social media for people under 16, its global context, policy challenges, and a debate over whether bans or regulation are appropriate responses to tech-related youth mental health concerns.

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores the UK’s landmark decision to ban children under 16 from accessing major social media platforms. The hosts present diverse views from across the political spectrum and the UK, discuss international developments, highlight research on digital harms, and reflect on broader lessons for government policy regarding youth, technology, and well-being.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Stage & World News (01:20–05:01)

• Ari Weitzman opens with a casual sports recap (Messi’s World Cup hat trick), then previews the main topic: the UK’s social media ban for minors.
• Audrey Moorhead delivers “quick hits” of major global and US political developments, setting a newsy, cross-spectrum tone.

2. The UK’s Ban: Details & Global Context (05:41–08:29)

• UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a 2027 ban on sub-16s accessing TikTok, Instagram, X, YouTube (not YouTube Kids), and restricts live streaming plus communication with strangers in gaming.
• Additional measures: AI chatbots simulating romantic or sexual relationships will be blocked for under 18s; potential social media curfews for minors.
• International context:
  • Australia implemented the first such national ban in Dec 2025 (under-16s); similar policies exist or are planned in Malaysia, Spain, France, Austria, Greece, Denmark, Indonesia.
  • In the US, federal action has stalled but some states have passed or attempted similar restrictions, often facing court roadblocks.
• Parental perspective: A student guest says, “I really think it should be the parents' responsibility to guide US Children ... a complete ban is a bit like authoritative and unnecessary.” (05:01)
• Starmer’s Substack: “Some children will find a technological workaround, but that doesn’t mean we should not take this step or that it won’t make a difference.” (07:42)
• Enforcement & skepticism:
  • Fines for noncompliant companies
  • Skeptics (e.g., Prof. John Crowcroft, Cambridge) warn of technical and behavioral workarounds, point to limited early impact in Australia.

3. What the Right is Saying (10:52–13:35)

• Mixed views: Some on the right see the ban as ineffective and privacy-invading, others as a bold public health move.
• Reem Ibrahim (Reason):
  • Bans “will come at the expense of the privacy of all British Internet users … The government cannot ban children … without asking everyone else to prove they are not children.”
  • Age checks (face scans, banking, ID) are intrusive; teens use social media for education and friendship-building; most see it “as good for helping to build and maintain friendships.”
• John Loftus (Daily Caller):
  • Applauds the ban, likening social media for kids to cigarettes: “No one in their right mind believes it’s healthy for a 10-year-old girl to be doomscrolling on TikTok every minute of the day. It’s almost like giving a child cigarettes.” (12:30)
  • Cites studies linking youth social media addiction to poor mental health, body image, and suicidal thoughts.
  • Notes the policy’s popularity and political motivations.

4. What the Left is Saying (13:35–15:55)

• Also divided: Some advocate for “regulation rather than bans,” others cite the success of restricting other “temptation goods” like alcohol or tobacco.
• Jessica L. Schleider (LA Times):
  • “If social platforms are harmful, don’t just ban kids, regulate the harms. … Blunt force bans are the wrong response to this moment. Bans without systemic oversight are worse than ineffective.” (14:25)
  • Time spent is less important than “what young people encounter online” and “whether platforms are structured to … support or undermine users’ well-being.”
• Keith Humphries & Jonathan Calkins (Atlantic):
  • Past bans on drugs/alcohol/pornography show possible social benefit.
  • “A ban might solve this collective action problem” by removing social pressure for teens to participate.
  • Cautions: It’s harder to regulate access online than with physical goods, but “many teens appear to want to be off social media.”

5. UK Writers' Views (15:55–18:38)

• Andrew Tettenborn (Spectator):
  • Labels the ban “stupid and unenforceable,” arguing for parental over governmental control—suggests requiring parental controls as default on all devices.
  • Notes educational value in YouTube, Reddit, etc., and practical enforcement issues: “Children can and undoubtedly will importune friends or elder siblings over 16 to lend them their phones or tablets, which at a stroke defeats the object.” (17:12)
• The Guardian Editorial Board:
  • Praises “a belated recognition that … tech companies … maximizing engagement … too frequently undermines [human flourishing]” even as privacy and implementation issues remain.
  • “If much remains unclear, this week’s gearshift is still welcome.” (18:00)

---

Host Analysis & Original Commentary

Ari Weitzman’s Take: “Policy Is Hard” (18:38–27:41)

• Nuanced approach:
  • Opens with, “A natural reaction when learning about a substance or behavior … that has been shown to be harmful is to want the government to ban it. I understand the impulse … but I also think jumping straight to outright bans is an unimaginative solution.”
• Compares social media to:
  • Factor A (alcohol), Factor B (online gambling), Factor C (sleep deprivation)—to highlight how different government responses to risk (prohibition, age-gating, self-regulation) come with unique pitfalls.
• Bans often fail or create perverse incentives:
  • Online gambling: Loopholes led to “proliferation of online sports betting, which … led to legalization in many states.”
  • Social media workaround: Kids can use platforms without accounts, making real age verification, “without it becoming state censorship,” nearly impossible.
• Problems with age gating:
  • “Even without creating accounts, kids with access to smartphones will still find websites where they can scroll mindlessly … Think of how much harder it is to create a law to age gate a web application.” (24:07)
• But “no policy” isn’t good either:
  • Cites sleep deprivation: “Schools that push their start times back show increased sleep for students, better academic performance, and improved well being. And yet most public schools still start between 7:30 and 8:30am so no policy isn’t necessarily a good policy either.” (25:45)
• Ideal solutions:
  • Emphasizes parental controls, federal support (recommendations failed in Congress), and a broader cultural shift.
  • “I’m very skeptical that government bans will help us get to a place where we’re minimizing these harms.” (27:35)

Notable Quote

“Any reasonable person would want to limit those harms, but it doesn’t follow that the best solution is banning every social media app for minors. … Policy is hard.” – Ari Weitzman (19:52)

Audrey Moorhead’s Staff Dissent (27:41–28:56)

• Argues cultural change sometimes needs external (government) pressure:
• “How can we expect the mass cultural change ... without some external pressure?... in a pluralistic society like the US religious pressures don't carry cultural weight, leaving us with government intervention as the most plausible path.” (27:45)
• Gives examples—seatbelts, drunk driving, social integration—where government action led to positive culture shifts.

• “I can’t help but wonder if social media bans are a rare case where that intervention does more good than harm.” (28:44)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the ban’s necessity:

  “No one in their right mind believes it's healthy for a 10-year-old girl to be doomscrolling on TikTok every minute of the day. It’s almost like giving a child cigarettes.” – John Loftus, quoted by Audrey Moorhead (12:30)

• On complexity of harm:

  “What matters far more than screen time alone is what young people encounter online, how content is delivered, and whether platforms are structured to support or undermine users’ well-being.” – Jessica Schleider, quoted by Audrey Moorhead (14:46)

• On enforcement challenges:

  “Children can and undoubtedly will importune friends or elder siblings over 16 to lend them their phones or tablets, which at a stroke defeats the object.” – Andrew Tettenborn, quoted by Audrey Moorhead (17:12)

• On government’s role:

  “For too long, tech companies have used their market power to dictate terms. Sir Keir’s move represents a belated recognition that ... their overarching goal of maximizing engagement ... too frequently undermines it.” – The Guardian Editorial Board, quoted by Audrey Moorhead (18:00)

• On policy paradoxes:

  “Policy is hard.” – Ari Weitzman (repeated through 18:38–27:41)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [01:20] Introduction and episode preview
• [05:41] UK ban details, global context, and parent/child perspectives
• [10:52] Right-wing critiques and endorsements
• [13:35] Left-wing critique and alternative suggestions
• [15:55] UK-specific perspectives on enforceability and principle
• [18:38] In-depth host take: Comparative risk and policy analysis
• [27:41] Staff dissent—government as a force for culture change

---

Additional Segments

• This Day in History: The love story and legacy of Mumtaz Mahal and Shah Jahan (Taj Mahal) (30:50)
• Under the Radar: The lifting of US restrictions on overland supersonic flights (31:55)
• Feel-Good Story: Friendship and fulfilling a lifelong dream—Molly and Maria’s journey to Puerto Rico (32:40)

---

Final Takeaways

• The UK’s ban is among the boldest responses to rising concerns over youth social media harm but faces enormous practical and philosophical hurdles: privacy, enforceability, and unintended consequences.
• Commentators across the spectrum stress that regulation, parental controls, and cultural shifts all play different roles—no single policy is a panacea.
• The hosts’ nuanced and often self-questioning debate encapsulates Tangle’s non-partisan, analytical approach: “Policy is hard.”

---

For links to the cited sources and stories, visit readtangle.com. Skip to [05:41] for the start of the social media ban segment, and to [18:38] for the main in-depth analysis.

Transcript

[Boost Mobile Advertiser]

The longer you stay alive, the longer you can enjoy Boost Mobile's unlimited plan with a price that never goes up. So here are some tips. Do not parallel park on a cliff if you want to enjoy an unlimited plan with a price that never goes up. Do not mistake a wasp nest for a pinata if you want to enjoy an unlimited plan with a price that never goes up. Do not microwave a hard boiled egg if you want to enjoy an unlimited plan with the price that never goes up. Stay alive and enjoy Unlimited Wireless for $25 a month forever. With Boost Mobile, after 30 gigs, customers may experience lower speeds. Customers will pay $25 a month as long as they remain active on the Boost Mobile Unlimited plan.

[ActiveCampaign/Monday.com Advertiser]

ActiveCampaign is the marketing automation platform built for big swings and big dreams. Generate ideas in seconds, import your brand and create full campaigns with simple prompts. Get started for [e-mail] Monday.com AI agents

[Ari Weitzman]

took over my work and I absolutely love it.

[ActiveCampaign/Monday.com Advertiser]

Chasing deadlines, writing status reports, updating stakeholders. Agents handle the daily grind.

[Ari Weitzman]

Now I stay in the loop only when it matters.

[ActiveCampaign/Monday.com Advertiser]

Create your own AI agent in minutes on Monday.com foreign.

[Audrey Moorhead]

This is Tangle.

[Ari Weitzman]

Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, the place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking and a little bit of our take. I'm your host for Today Today, Tangles Managing editor Ari Weitzman, and I've got a question for you. Where were you on the night of June 16, 2026? And no, you don't need to get a lawyer. You're not compelled by law to answer. But if you weren't watching Argentina play Algeria in the World cup last night, you will have to answer to yourself. Soccer is the biggest sport in the history of the world, this year's World cup is the biggest tournament in the history of the sport, and one of the game's all time greats just turned in a performance for the record books last night. Lionel Messi recorded a hat trick in Argentina's 3 nothing win over Algeria and he also had another goal called back for being offside and he gave Patrick Mahomes a show in his own house in Kansas City. Messi will turn 39 next week, making him exactly one month older than your humble podcast host for Today, where we're going to be talking about the ban on smartphones in the UK as well as other bands across the world. And just in general we whether or not we should be doing bands like this at all. We're also going to be turning back the clock with features on one of the wonders of the world and a return of supersonic planes. So I'm going to turn it over to our associate editor, Audrey Moorhead, who's going to introduce today's topic. Give us what the left and right are saying and I'll be back for my take.

[Audrey Moorhead]

Thanks, Ari. First up, I have today's quick hits. Number one Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arakchi said that the agreement to end the U. S Iran war requires Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. Israel has said it will not accept that condition. Separately, the Wall Street Journal reported that the deal will allow Iran to immediately begin selling oil and fuel. US Officials have also indicated that Iran will have access to a $300 billion fund to help rebuild the country if they meet certain provisions in the deal. Number two President Donald Trump said he will delay the confirmation hearing of Jay Clayton as director of National Intelligence, prioritize confirming Clayton's replacement for U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. The delay could impact the Senate's efforts to reauthorize section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, which lawmakers from both parties have refused to support until acting DNI Bill pulte is replaced. 3. Republican Representative Mike Collins of Georgia, endorsed by President Trump, advanced in the Republican runoff for Georgia Senate and will face Democratic incumbent Senator Jon Ossoff in the general election. Businessman Rick Jackson defeated. Trump backed lieutenant governor Burt Jones in the state's Republican gubernatorial runoff. Jackson will face former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lace Bottoms, a Democrat, in the general election. Separately, Trump backed Republican Representative Barry Moore won Alabama's Republican Senate primary runoff in the race to succeed Sen. Tommy Tuberv. Number four the Education Department announced that it will move offices overseeing special education services and civil rights out of its purview, transferring their work to the Department of Health and Human Services and the justice department, respectively. 5. A federal judge temporarily blocked an Idaho law that bars transgender people from using bathrooms that do not correspond with their sex, finding that the law is likely unconstitutional. Idaho's Republican Attorney General Raul Labrador said he will appeal the ruling.

[Guest Commentator on Social Media Bans]

I know in the future it will have it will have a positive impact on young people's lives and their mental health. I think the issue is right now is the lack of guidance from parents, so I really think it should be the parents responsibility to guide US Children. It maybe shouldn't have been banned. Maybe it should be more restricted so you can't talk to people that you don't know or just people that aren't very nice I personally think that it's the parents responsibility to decide whether their children are immature enough for whatever social media apps that they're asking for. And a complete ban is a bit like authoritative and unnecessary.

[Audrey Moorhead]

On Monday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that in 2027, the United Kingdom will ban children under 16 from accessing major social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram X and YouTube, though not YouTube Kids. Several other countries have passed similar bans, but the UK's measure will go further, blocking features like live streaming and communicating with strangers while gaming. Furthermore, Starmer said the regulations will restrict access to artificial intelligence chatbots designed to simulate romantic or sexual relationships for users under 18 and may also impose curfews on social media use for under 18s. For some context, in December 2025, Australia implemented a social media ban for children under 16, becoming the first country to impose restrictions for minors. Malaysia, Spain, France, Austria, Greece, Denmark and Indonesia have now also announced or implemented social media bans for select platforms. In the United States, Congress has not taken up legislation to enact similar restrictions, though. In 2025, a bipartisan group of senators introduced the Kids Off Social Media act, which would prevent American children under 13 from making social media accounts. The bill has not been voted on. As of late 2025, several US states had enacted social media bans for minors or laws requiring parental consent for minors to operate social media accounts, though many of those laws were later blocked by courts. Several other states are currently considering bans. In a substack post on Monday, Starmer wrote, I am simply not prepared to be a bystander when the safety and happiness of our children are at stakeholders. Of course some children will find a technological workaround, but that doesn't mean we should not take this step or that it won't make a difference. The UK Parliament passed the Children's Wellbeing and Schools act in April, which allows it to create targeted rules like this social media ban without needing to pass further legislation to enforce the restrictions. The UK plans to impose fines on companies that fail to comply with the law, and Starmer hopes to put those regulations into effect by the spring of 2027. Some experts have questioned the efficacy of such bans. John Crowcroft, a communications systems professor at the University of Cambridge, said there is a real risk this will drive some users to worse sites, and policing devices is close to impossible technically. Others have noted the limited initial impacts of Australia's ban. In March, Australia's Internet regulator published a poll that showed 70% of parents said their children still access social media platforms. The United States Embassy in the UK also published a notice on June 5th opposing the UK's ban. Today we'll explore perspectives on social media bans from the right, left and British writers. Then managing editor Ari Weitzman will give his take.

[Podcast Host/Announcer]

We'll be right back after this quick break.

[Quint's Advertiser]

Summer always changes how I get dressed. I want pieces that feel lighter and more breathable. Things that are easy but still put together. That's why I keep coming back to Quint's. They focus on high quality essentials that feel and look amazing. Think breathable linen and soft organic cotton. Well made basics but without the luxury markup. It's that rare balance where everything feels elevated but still effortless. Everything at Quint's is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. They work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middleman. So you're paying for quality and not brand markup. I've got a couple of quince linen shirts that I wear when I go out to the park with my daughter or even on a date night with my wife, and I'm always surprised at how many compliments I randomly get from people. It's really empowering. It actually makes me feel really great. So do yourself a favor, get those compliments for yourself. Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quints.com tangle for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com tangle for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quint.com tangle one of the biggest sighs

[Podcast Host/Announcer]

of relief I had recently was when I finally got life insurance with a newborn son at home and my wife who I want to make sure is taken care of forever no matter what happens. To me, getting life insurance was just one of those things that took a big weight off my shoulders. Ethos makes getting life insurance fast and easy 100% online. You can get a quote in seconds, apply in minutes and get same day coverage. There's no medical exam, you just answer a few simple health questions. You can get up to $3 million in coverage and some policies are as low as $30 a month and you'll get your lowest rate from their network of trusted carriers. Ethos has 4.8 out of 5 stars on Trustpilot with over 4000 reviews. So take 10 minutes to get covered today with life insurance through Ethos. Get your free [e-mail] Tangle that's Ethos E T H O S.com Tangle. Application times may vary and rates may vary.

[Audrey Moorhead]

First up, what the ride is Saying the right is mixed on the ban, with some suggesting it will be ineffective. Others say Britain is taking necessary action in reason, Reem Ibrahim wrote. The evidence suggests bans won't work. Regardless of how the ban will be enforced, one thing is it will come at the expense of the privacy of all British Internet users. The government cannot ban children from social media without asking everyone else to prove they are not children. Ofcom, Britain's communications regulator, says in its own guidance under the Online Safety act that age checks can include facial age estimation, open banking, digital identity services, credit card checks, email based age estimation, mobile network checks and photo ID matching. The government's plan appears to have been designed by people with very little understanding of how teenagers actually use the Internet. As one survey of Europeans aged 13 to 18 foundation 74% of teenagers on average said they watched videos on YouTube to learn something new for school, and 71% on average watched videos on YouTube to learn something new for fun or outside of school. Social media is also used to stay in touch with friends and family. A majority of Both girls at 71% and boys at 60% see being online as good for helping to build and maintain friendships. In the Daily Caller, John Loftus said Britain made a good call for once. Britain is famous for its nanny state rules, which include extremely strict anti smoking rules and high sin taxes and a sugar levy to curb alcohol consumption and lower obesity rates. The current government is also pro censorship and more generally, Britain does not have an enshrined First Amendment as we do in the states. But Starmer's decision to ban social media for children is nevertheless the right move. No one in their right mind believes it's healthy for a 10 year old girl to be doomscrolling on TikTok every minute of the day. It's almost like giving a child cigarettes. A study published in 2025 found that social media and smartphone addiction among kids is linked to a higher risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Another study found that nearly half of kids aged 13 to 17 said social media made them feel worse about their bodies. Yet there is certainly a political calculation. The policy appears popular in Britain and Star Mark could desperately use a win. It could also be a middle finger to American CEOs and Big Tech companies. Next up, what the Left is saying the left is also mixed on the bans, with some saying regulation is a better option. Others note that restrictions on different addictive products have been effective. In the Los Angeles Times, Jessica L. Schleider argued, if social platforms are harmful, don't just ban kids, regulate the harms. These bans are politically attractive. They are simple, signal action and promise protection without requiring the nuanced, slow and logistically complex work of regulating trillion dollar companies. But blunt force bans are the wrong response. To this moment. Bans without systemic oversight are worse than ineffective. They are a form of policy abdication. They kick the can down the road, shift responsibility away from technology companies and give up on the far harder task of making online spaces genuinely safer. The millions of young people who already use them every day and will likely continue to do so across large studies. The association between overall time spent on social media and mental health outcomes is often small or inconsistent. What matters far more than screen time alone is what young people encounter online, how content is delivered, and whether platforms are structured to support or undermine users well being. Responding to that reality with bans aimed at youth access rather than regulation of platform design is a profound misalignment of responsibility. It places the burden of safety on adolescents and families while leaving the systems that generate harm intact. In the Atlantic, Keith Humphries and Jonathan Calkins suggested a social media ban really could do a lot of good. The long experience of governments trying to restrict young people's access to temptation goods of other kinds drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, pornography justifies Koch's optimism. The ban might deliver some truly valuable benefits, letting useful missteps remain local and ephemeral rather than searing permanent brands onto developing psyches and giving young people more time to develop the in person social skills and connections that make life meaningful. Positive outcomes from raising the minimum legal age for addictive substances do not guarantee success for imposing minimum legal ages on social media accounts, consuming alcohol, tobacco or cannabis requires the acquisition of a physical object. This creates regulatory checkpoints that are hard to replicate online. However, in other respects, banning access to social media may be easier. Many teens appear to want to be off social media. They see it as detrimental to their own well being, but nevertheless feel like they have to be on it to keep up with their peers. A ban might solve this collective action problem. Finally, what UK writers are saying Some British writers see the ban as government overkill. Others say Starmer was right to pursue bold action to address a pressing issue. In the Spectator, Andrew Tetenborn called Britain's ban stupid and unenforceable. The responsibility for supervising what children read and see should lie squarely with parents who, after all, can dictate the Internet setup in their homes and choose which, if any, smartphones to give their offspring. The government could have subtly reinforced this idea, for instance, by requiring that all phones and routers sold have parental controls set to on by default, only changeable by the account holder. The idea that this is something for the state and its none too subtle mega agency of com sends an unfortunate message. There is much wholesome educational content on YouTube, raining from maths to history to current affairs. Schools indeed increasingly encourage the young to draw on it for the purposes of homework and further study. Again, teenagers often have a keen interest in computing, and for this, Reddit is one of the best sources. But no dice whatever. Keir Starmer says there are big questions over whether any of this is actually enforceable, something the Australians who brought in a similar ban a short time ago have already found out. Children can and undoubtedly will importune friends or elder siblings over 16 to lend them their phones or tablets, which at a stroke defeats the object. The Guardian editorial board praised the UK's new, tougher approach to child safety. How people feel about this depends to some extent on their attitude to big tech. Age verification is controversial because it could carry implications for adults as well, depending on how it is implemented. Last week, Sir Keir Starmer committed to compulsory nudity detection on all devices if Apple and Google do not come up with a software fix to protect children by September. There are legitimate fears that data protection laws may not be sufficient to protect privacy if users are required to upload documents to prove who they are. But if much remains unclear, this week's Gearshift is still welcome. For too long, tech companies have used their market power to dictate terms. Sir Keer's move represents a belated recognition that while these businesses have changed the world in ways that many people appreciate, their overarching goal of maximizing engagement with their products is not aligned with human flourishing and too frequently undermines it. That's it for what the right, left and UK writers are saying next. I'll pass it back off to Ari for his take and you'll see me again for my dissent.

[Ari Weitzman]

A natural reaction when learning about a substance or behavior that has been shown to be harmful is to want the government to ban it. I understand the impulse. If studies show that something is bad for you, then why should it be legal? But I also think jumping straight to outright bans is an unimaginative solution, and it's one that's prone to failure, sometimes backfires, and it can create bigger problems than what were associated with the thing the government just made. Illegal policy is hard. Social media use has been very convincingly demonstrated to have negative impacts on minors. I think that's something we can all agree to. A 2025 review of 57 studies across 21 countries found that daily social media use is associated with increased stress, anxiety, depression, loneliness and poor sleep quality. As much as 40% of depressed youth reported high levels of social media use, and spending three or more hours on social media per day has been associated with elevated risks of self harm. Smartphone usage even negatively affects the cervical, spine, eyes and sleep quality. Any reasonable person would want to limit those harms, but it doesn't follow that the best solution is banning every social media app for minors. I'd like to try an exercise with you. I'm going to give you the stats for three different risk factors. Without knowing what specific risk factors these are. What do you think the appropriate government response to these factors would be? Should they be banned for everyone, made unavailable or illegal for minors only, or just be left up to every individual to self manage? Let's start with Factor a. As of 2024, 228 million Americans age 12 and older have engaged in behavior associated with factor A, and 27 million adults have a disordered relationship with it. 50 to 70% of people with a disordered relationship to factor A also have a psychiatric disorder at some point in their lives like depression, anxiety or suicidality, and 83% have some kind of physical disorder like hypertension, asthma or high cholesterol. In a given month, 48% of young adults 18 to 25 will have engaged in this behavior, which is associated with the deaths of 4300 individuals under the age of 21 every year. Even limited exposure to factor A can severely impact an adolescent's development. Now, Factor B. Based on a 2024 study, 61% of North American adults engaged in this behavior and 13.8% did so to a risky degree often associated with a disorder. If a person develops a disorder with factor B, they have an 82% chance of a co occurring mental disorder like substance abuse, mood or personality disorders, and they have a 27% chance of a physical disorder such as respiratory or endocrine disorders. Among minors, between 4 and 8% participated in this behavior in 2024 and 15% of those who did have a risky usage rate. 68% of youth with a disordered relationship to factor B are also have a psychiatric disorder and 20% have attempted suicide. Since 2024, access to and usage of Factor B has increased. And now finally, factor C. Roughly 1/3 of all U.S. adults participate in behavior associated with factor C. Which has an associated 6 to 15% increase in mortality. 46% of people engaged in this behavior report lower than average mental health scores, and the behavior has a 48% increased risk of heart disease and 50% increased risk of obesity. In 2024, 60 to 70% of teenagers engaged in disordered behavior with factor C, which has been causally linked to poor brain development and heightened anxiety, stress and depression and and has a higher associated risk of diabetes. A 2025 study has also implicated Factor C in 21% of all fatal car crashes, while another study from the same year has linked factor C to an elevated risk of cancer. I'll ask again, what should the government's policies be towards these risk factors? Really take a second to consider it. Maybe you think the best policy is to just make them totally illegal. And for a long time that was the US policy regarding online gambling or factor B. The federal wire act of 1961 prohibited interstate transmission of bets and wagers by wire, and in 2006 Congress made it illegal for companies to knowingly process funds won through online gambling with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. However, that same act also created a specific carve out for fantasy sports that reflect the relative knowledge and scale of the participants. That led to a boom in one day fantasy leagues, which led to the proliferation of online sports betting, which along with a major Supreme Court ruling led to legalization in many states. In essence, the sensible attempt to create carve outs for what at the time were pretty benign and friendly use cases ended up inviting companies to explore loopholes which became so common that much of the regulation was reduced to a farce. And I know the rebuttal that's a problem we should fix with sports betting, not one we're doomed to recreate with social media. But social media restrictions still face the same problem online gambling faced. How do you define the problem? Australia's ban on social media also extends to YouTube, which means that kids can't have accounts, but it doesn't mean they can't go to the website. Now kids are watching videos without signing in, making it harder for parents to control their child's usage. Sites like Reddit and X don't require a login to view posts either. How can these sites be made 100% inaccessible by law without it becoming state censorship? Maybe you think the best policy is to try to age gate social media. That's essentially what our country's stance is with alcohol or factor A. And yet kids still access and consume alcohol, and that's a physical substance. Think of how much harder it is to create a law to age gate a web application. Even without creating accounts, kids with access to smartphones will still find websites where they can scroll mindlessly, like they're already doing in Australia. Solving this problem isn't as easy as individual states banning porn websites for everyone. As Reem Ibrahim wrote in Reason under what the Right Is Saying, it's hard to imagine an effective age restriction that doesn't effectively apply to everybody without age gating. Maybe you think that the best policy is really no policy, that the government shouldn't be involved at all and social media use should be left up entirely to the individual. That's the government's approach to sleep deprivation, which is factor C. And that makes sense. Intuitively. You wouldn't want the government to mandate a bedtime and then be faced with the unseemly question of how to enforce it, even if this is the most prevalent of all the problems that we talked about today. But here, the government's lack of any stance or policy at all actually exacerbates this issue. Schools that push their start times back show increased sleep for students, better academic performance, and improved well being. And yet most public schools still start between 7:30 and 8:30am so no policy isn't necessarily a good policy either. That principle applies to other examples too. States where online sports spending is legal have 25 to 30% more bankruptcies, and and binge drinking is higher in countries where the drinking age is lower. Clearly some level of government control makes a difference. Again, policy is hard. In an ideal world, I'd like to see families be better equipped to manage social media usage on their own, like a federal law requiring age restrictions and parental controls, which Congress has already tried and failed to pass. I'd also like our cultural norms regarding public phone usage to change. And some people, like my personal favorite, modern singer songwriter Phoebe Bridgers, are already banning phones from their concerts. And just to zoom out, describing how I think that cultural shift should unfold would take another 4,000 words at minimum. So for today, I'll just say I'm very skeptical that government bans will help us get to a place where we're minimizing these harms. That's it for my take, so I'm going to pass it back over to Audrey for the rest of the podcast, including her staff dissent.

[Audrey Moorhead]

Thanks, Ari. I'm back with a staff dissent. By and large, I agree with Ari that a government ban on social media is not ideal. However, I have to ask, how can we expect the mass cultural change that Ari and I both want to see without some external pressure, the natural human impulse is to chase pleasure and convenience and avoid pain. So much so that philosophers have long theorized about how to use external institutions, often religious ones, to curb certain pleasurable impulses in order to create a well ordered society. But in a pluralistic society like the US Religious pressures don't carry cultural weight, leaving us with government intervention as the most plausible path. This can work both ways, creating both greater acceptance and greater restriction of behaviors. Meaningful adoption of seatbelts and reduction in inebriated driving only occurred after states instituted laws mandating safer driving practices. On the flip side, meaningful social acceptance of integration and gay marriage both only occurred after federal intervention. As much as I am resistant to government intervention, I can't help but wonder if social media bans are a rare case where that intervention does more good than harm. Foreign

[Podcast Host/Announcer]

we'll be right back after this quick break.

[ActiveCampaign/Monday.com Advertiser]

Running a business means juggling a lot of moving parts. And when your communication tools can't keep up, things start to slip. Missed calls, slow replies, scattered conversations. They're not just frustrating, they're lost opportunities and revenue left on the table. That's where Quo comes in. Spelled q u o, quo is the number one rated business phone system on G2, trusted by over 90,000 businesses. One shared business number for calls and texts so every conversation stays visible, organized and accountable. It works from an app or computer. You can keep your existing number, add teammates and sync your CRM, letting you scale without adding complexity. And with built in AI, Quo logs calls, summarizes conversations and flags next steps. Even after hours. Stop missing customers. Stop leaving revenue on the table. Try quo free and get 20% off your first six months at quo.comtech that's quo.comtech quo no missed calls, no missed customers.

[Jonathan Fields]

Hi, this is Jonathan Fields, host of the Good Life Project. What if your home could welcome you at the door, energize your kitchen and calm your bedroom all automatically. With Pura's family of smart diffusers, you can send every space perfectly, choose premium clean fragrances, adjust the intensity and set schedules right from your phone. It's whole home scenting, designed for the way you live. Build your Pura system [e-mail] Whole Home.

[Audrey Moorhead]

Now for this day in history. Arjemand Banu Begum was the fifth Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan's third and favorite wife. She was so beloved that her husband gave her the name Mumtaz Mahal, meaning exalted one of the palace. Mumtaz was his trusted companion and confidant during military campaigns for the 19 years they were married. Tragedy struck, however, during the birth of her 14th child. She died of postpartum hemorrhage on June 17, 1631, after prolonged labor. According to legend, Shah Jahan was so grieved that he went into secluded mourning for a year and his hair turned white. During her life, Mumtaz Mahal supposedly made Shah Jahan promise her to build a palace tomb and to visit it each year on her death anniversary. As a monument of his love for his wife, Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal, one of the wonders of the modern world in modern day Agra, India. The palace, made of ivory marble, took 22 years to complete, but once it was done, Mumtaz Mahal's body was interred there. According to legend, Shah Jahan intended to build a black taj across the river to hold his own body, but war with his sons interrupted his plans. After his death, the new ruler his son Aurangzeb, and tear Shah Jahan in the Taj Mahal alongside his wife. Next up, our under the radar story on June 6, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Federal Aviation Administration to lift restrictions on overland supersonic flights. The rules, which have been in place for over five decades, prevented civil aircrafts from flying at supersonic speeds over US Land masses, largely due to the loud supersonic boom these flights produce. The order calls on the FAA to establish an interim noise based certification standard and would benefit supersonic flight companies such as Boom Supersonic, whose aircraft have already been ordered or pre ordered by United, American and Japan Airlines. Forbes has the story and you can find the link in the show notes. Last up, have a nice day. One day, while riding the New York subway with AirPods in, Molly Sala noticed that the woman beside her was asking her a question. That question sparked a conversation that blossomed into a friendship. Molly went from a stranger next to Maria on the train to visiting her apartment for dinner once a week. One day, Molly made a TikTok video about their friendship and about her commitment to helping Maria fulfill her lifelong dream of traveling back to Puerto Rico. The island has home that she'd left seven decades earlier. Molly's video quickly went viral and Molly and Maria will visit Puerto Rico in July. Today has the story and you can find the link in the show notes.

[Ari Weitzman]

All right everybody, that's it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, you can head over to retangle.com and sign up for a membership. I also highly recommend that you tune in to watch the World Cup Games. It's really exciting. It's like the only time that the entire World cup world's watching something, including the Olympics, really. So take a moment to do that if you can. You have basically the whole summer to do it. It's a really long tournament this year. We'll be back in your ear tomorrow with another tango edition. Until then, take care of yourselves. Peace.

[Podcast Host/Announcer]

Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul and our executive producer is John Woll. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, with Senior Editor Will K. Back and Associate editors Audrey Morehead, Lindsay Knuth and Bailey Saw. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our [e-mail].

[Audrey Moorhead]

Traffic may be locked, but savings isn't Unlock the savings at Boost Mobile with

[Guest Commentator on Social Media Bans]

unlimited wireless for just $25 a month.

[Boost Mobile Advertiser]

Forever.

[Ari Weitzman]

No contracts, no hikes, and you keep your phone.

[Audrey Moorhead]

Unlock the [e-mail] Unlock $25 forever requires

[Ari Weitzman]

customers to remain active on Boost Unlimited Wireless plan.

[Audrey Moorhead]

For full offer details, visit boostmobile.com marketers. You know that feeling when your creative clicks, when that social post sends engagement through the roof. When your outside of the box campaign hits ROI positive. When a personalized homepage turns prospects into customers, it's utter marketing bliss. Contentful helps you create tailored omnichannel experiences without working overtime. No stress, no limits, only possibilities.

[Contentful/OnDeck Advertiser]

Get the [e-mail] OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team or bridging cash flow, Gaps on Deck's loans up to $400,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A plus by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five star trust pilot reviews, Ondeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck. Com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans an amount subject to lender approval.