Six questions to ask in the wake of the government’s ban on social media for under-16s:

1. What changes? Deferring access defers exposure, and deferring exposure defers the harms.

2. How much changes? Bullying, comparison, appearance pressures, algorithms – these aren’t confined to social media. The online world keeps turning, and even with the door closed, the windows are still open.

3. Are all changes good? With anything addictive or compulsive, restriction often drives seeking. Is prohibition just intensifying the pull toward the very thing we’re seeking to minimise engagement with? And the benefits – connection, creativity, community, and the lessons in managing these spaces – lost.

4. Who was consulted on these changes? Were young people themselves, and those most often overlooked, part of the process? Or are we, once again, making decisions about them, without them?

5. Who do these changes hold to account? Tech companies are let off the hook, platforms untouched, and regulations weak. Has the responsibility been placed in the right hands?

6. What’s the result of changes like these? We can look to Australia, who brought in this same ban six months ago. Around 60% of young people are already circumventing it – is that success?

A reductive fix rarely solves a complicated problem. Social media is complex, young people are complex, and the harms are complex too.

Action is great but we cannot pretend a band-aid fixes a bullet hole.