UK Announces Social Media Ban for Children Under 16 - Newstrends
Connect with us

International

UK Announces Social Media Ban for Children Under 16

Published

on

UK Announces Social Media Ban for Children Under 16

UK Announces Social Media Ban for Children Under 16

The United Kingdom has announced plans to introduce one of the world’s toughest online safety measures, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer confirming that children under the age of 16 will be banned from accessing major social media platforms.

The proposed legislation, expected to be presented to Parliament later this year, will prohibit under-16s from using platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, YouTube, and X. The government says the move is aimed at protecting children from harmful content, online predators, cyberbullying, and addictive digital features that negatively impact mental health.

Announcing the policy on Monday, Starmer said social media platforms are increasingly “making children unhappy” and exposing them to content that is both dangerous and deliberately designed to keep young users engaged for extended periods.

According to the British government, the ban is expected to take effect in spring 2027 if approved by lawmakers. Officials say technology companies will be required to implement robust age-verification systems to prevent underage users from accessing restricted platforms.

While the restrictions will apply to most major social networking services, messaging applications such as WhatsApp and Signal will remain exempt from the ban. Authorities argue that these services primarily facilitate direct communication rather than content-driven engagement.

READ ALSO:

In addition to social media restrictions, the UK government plans to introduce tougher regulations for gaming services and livestreaming platforms that allow children to interact with strangers online. Starmer emphasized that children should not be exposed to unknown adults through digital platforms without adequate safeguards, indicating that further measures are being developed to limit such interactions. Officials have described the planned reforms as “world-leading,” with additional details expected to be unveiled in July.

The government is also considering a range of extra protections for young internet users. These include overnight social media curfews for minors, mandatory breaks from infinite scrolling features, and stricter default privacy settings for teenagers. Officials say the proposals are intended to reduce excessive screen time and minimize exposure to potentially harmful online content. The reforms follow a government-led consultation in which British teenagers tested social media bans and app time limits, helping shape the final policy framework.

Starmer acknowledged that the UK’s approach was partly inspired by Australia, which became the first country to implement a nationwide social media ban for under-16s. However, British officials insist that the UK’s proposals go further by extending restrictions to gaming platforms, livestreaming services, and potentially certain AI-powered companion chatbots that may pose risks to children.

The announcement has generated debate within the technology industry. A spokesperson for YouTube warned that a blanket ban could push children toward less-regulated online services, potentially creating new safety concerns. Other industry stakeholders have questioned how age-verification requirements will be enforced and whether teenagers will find ways to circumvent the restrictions.

Despite the criticism, the government remains committed to the policy, arguing that stronger intervention is necessary to protect children in an increasingly digital world. Supporters of the proposal say the ban could help tackle growing concerns about mental health issues, online addiction, cyberbullying, and harmful content exposure among young people.

If approved, the legislation would position the UK among the global leaders in regulating children’s online activity and could influence similar policy discussions in other countries.

UK Announces Social Media Ban for Children Under 16

Loading

International

US Allows Iran’s Core UN Delegation, Denies Visas to Some Officials

Published

on

US Allows Iran’s Core UN Delegation, Denies Visas to Some Officials
Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi

US Allows Iran’s Core UN Delegation, Denies Visas to Some Officials

The United States has refused to issue visas to some members of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s delegation, including members of his communications team, ahead of his planned appearance at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York.

Iranian state media reported the visa refusals on Monday, September 21, 2026, while confirming that the United States has authorised the core Iranian delegation to travel to New York for the high-level UN gathering.

Pezeshkian is expected to address the 81st UN General Assembly on Wednesday, making his planned visit the highest-level Iranian presence in the United States since the conflict involving Iran, Israel and the US escalated earlier this year.

Iran’s state news agency, IRNA, reported that the Trump administration had denied visas to certain members of Pezeshkian’s high-level delegation, including personnel responsible for communications.

The Mehr news agency also reported the visa denials, citing a spokesperson for the Iranian presidency.

The decision does not amount to a blanket refusal of entry to the Iranian delegation. The United States has authorised the core delegation, which includes President Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, to attend the UN General Assembly.

The distinction is significant because the annual UN gathering brings together representatives of member states at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York, which is hosted by the United States.

The current arrangement follows restrictions imposed by Washington on the Iranian delegation during last year’s General Assembly. UN records show that Iran previously raised concerns over visa delays and denials affecting members of its delegation and argued that such restrictions hindered its participation in UN activities.

For this year’s meeting, Washington has also imposed restrictions on the movement and activities of the Iranian delegation while it is in the United States.

READ ALSO:

The State Department has said the delegation will face restrictions on its movements and on the purchase of certain luxury goods and other items. The measures come amid the absence of normal diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States and the continuing conflict between the two countries.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi left Iran on Sunday for the United States, travelling through Qatar.

The Iranian government has also used Qatar as an intermediary in communicating with Washington over the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for global oil and gas shipments.

Tehran has conveyed conditions for reopening the waterway, according to Iranian officials, while the United States has imposed measures against Iranian ports.

The Strait of Hormuz has become a major issue in the wider conflict because of its importance to international energy supplies.

Pezeshkian’s expected appearance at the UN General Assembly comes at a particularly sensitive moment in relations between Tehran and Washington.

The conflict has also become a major issue for this year’s UN gathering, with world leaders expected to discuss the Middle East, the war involving Iran, the conflict in Ukraine, the situation in Gaza and other international crises.

The Iranian president’s presence in New York could provide an opportunity for diplomatic contacts on the sidelines of the General Assembly, although the two governments remain sharply divided over the conflict and other issues.

US President Donald Trump is also attending the UN General Assembly this week and is expected to address the gathering.

Trump has indicated that he remains open to discussions involving Iran, while Tehran has continued to communicate through intermediaries.

The visa dispute therefore adds another layer to already strained US-Iran relations, but it has not prevented Iran’s president and foreign minister from attending the UN meeting.

For now, Pezeshkian’s scheduled appearance means Iran will have senior-level representation at the 81st UN General Assembly, despite Washington’s refusal to issue visas to some members of his wider delegation.

The immediate focus will be on Pezeshkian’s address, Iran’s position on the ongoing conflict and whether the UN gathering creates opportunities for further diplomatic engagement between Tehran and Washington.

US Allows Iran’s Core UN Delegation, Denies Visas to Some Officials

Loading

Continue Reading

International

CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Access Ban

Published

on

CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Access Ban

CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Access Ban

CNN, MS NOW and Politico have filed a federal lawsuit against the administration of US President Donald Trump, challenging the decision to revoke their journalists’ access to the White House.

The three major news organisations are asking a federal court in Washington, DC, to intervene after the Trump administration barred their reporters from the White House grounds and deactivated or confiscated their press credentials.

The organisations argue that the administration’s action violated their First Amendment press rights and the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections, alleging that their access was withdrawn because of dissatisfaction with their reporting.

The case was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, with the media organisations seeking expedited consideration of their challenge and an order restoring their access to the White House.

The lawsuit names President Donald Trump, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, White House spokesperson Steven Cheung and Secret Service Director Sean Curran as defendants.

The legal action followed Trump’s decision to exclude the three organisations from the White House after he accused them of publishing what he described as “fake news” about his administration.

Trump has argued that journalists remain free to report on him but that the administration is not required to provide White House access to every news organisation.

The president also defended the decision on social media, where he characterised the affected outlets as a threat to national security. The reports on the lawsuit did not indicate that the administration had presented evidence publicly establishing such a threat.

The dispute escalated on Saturday, September 19, when reporters working for CNN, MS NOW and Politico were turned away from the White House complex.

Their press access was reportedly deactivated or their credentials confiscated, preventing them from covering activities inside the presidential complex in the usual manner.

The organisations subsequently warned that the White House decision raised broader questions about whether a presidential administration could deny access to journalists because of disagreement with their reporting.

READ ALSO:

In their court challenge, the outlets are expected to argue that the government cannot use access to public officials and government facilities as a means of punishing or influencing the content of news coverage.

The case comes as the Trump administration has significantly changed the way White House press access is managed.

The administration has increasingly exercised greater control over which journalists attend certain presidential events, while also expanding access for reporters from organisations it considers more favourable or less represented in traditional White House press coverage.

The latest dispute, however, concerns the removal of access from three established national news organisations at the same time.

The White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) has criticised the exclusion of the outlets and raised concerns about the implications for press access and government transparency.

Other media organisations and press-freedom groups have also expressed concern over the decision, arguing that government officials should not determine access based on whether they approve of particular news coverage.

The White House, on the other hand, has maintained that the administration has authority to determine access to the White House and has repeatedly accused some mainstream news organisations of inaccurate or unfair reporting.

The legal battle also has implications beyond the three organisations involved because federal courts have previously considered disputes between the executive branch and news organisations over access to the president.

One prominent case involved CNN reporter Jim Acosta during Trump’s first administration.

In 2018, the White House revoked Acosta’s press credentials following a confrontation during a presidential news conference. CNN challenged the decision in court, and a federal judge ordered the temporary restoration of his access.

The Trump administration has also been involved in a more recent dispute with the Associated Press.

The administration restricted AP’s access after the news agency declined to adopt Trump’s preferred terminology for the Gulf of Mexico. A federal judge later ordered the administration to restore the AP’s access in certain circumstances, although subsequent litigation resulted in distinctions between generally accessible areas and more restricted presidential events.

The current lawsuit involving CNN, MS NOW and Politico raises related but distinct questions about the government’s authority to control press access.

A central issue is expected to be whether the administration can exclude news organisations from access that is otherwise made available to members of the White House press corps because of disagreement with their reporting.

Another issue is the extent to which the First Amendment limits government decisions affecting journalists’ access, particularly when the alleged reason for exclusion is connected to the content or viewpoint of their reporting.

The media organisations are also challenging the process used to revoke their access, arguing that they were not given adequate notice or an opportunity to contest the decision before their credentials were withdrawn.

The case has already affected White House media arrangements beyond routine presidential coverage.

CNN had been scheduled to provide the television pool feed for Trump’s Monday trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly, but the assignment was removed from the White House press schedule following the access dispute.

The White House press pool is important because participating organisations provide shared coverage, photographs, video and other material that can be used by news organisations that cannot send their own journalists to every presidential event.

The lawsuit therefore places questions of press freedom, government transparency and presidential control over media access at the centre of another federal court dispute involving the Trump administration.

For the three organisations, the immediate objective is restoration of access to the White House and the ability of their journalists to resume reporting from the presidential complex.

For the administration, the dispute involves its stated authority to determine who receives access to the White House and how that access is organised.

The court’s handling of the case could provide further guidance on the constitutional limits surrounding White House press credentials, particularly where access decisions are alleged to be connected to the content of journalists’ reporting.

Until the court rules, the competing claims remain disputed. The lawsuit itself does not establish that the administration violated the Constitution, while the White House’s allegations against the news organisations remain the administration’s stated position rather than findings by a court.

CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Access Ban

Loading

Continue Reading

International

18 Suspects Transferred to US Over 2021 Killing of Haitian President Moïse

Published

on

18 Suspects Transferred to US Over 2021 Killing of Haitian President Moïse
18 Suspects Transferred to US Over 2021 Killing of Haitian President Moïse

Eighteen suspects accused of involvement in the 2021 assassination of former Haitian President Jovenel Moise have been transferred from Haiti to the United States to face trial.

US officials said the suspects were transported to Florida on Sunday, as American authorities continue their prosecution of people allegedly connected to the plot.

Federal prosecutor Jason Reding Quinones said the suspects were flown from Haiti on a military aircraft to face proceedings in the Southern District of Florida.

He said US authorities had so far indicted 30 people in connection with the assassination and warned that the prosecutions were not over.

Among those transferred was Joseph Felix Badio, a former anti-corruption official with Haiti’s Ministry of Justice who has been identified as a major suspect in the investigation.

Haitian government and police sources said the other suspects included Colombian nationals who were allegedly part of the group involved in the operation.

READ ALSO:

Colombian Nationals Among Suspects

Colombia’s Foreign Ministry confirmed that 17 of its citizens had been transferred from Haiti to the United States.

The ministry said the Colombian government was monitoring the development but had not participated in the decision or process that led to the transfer.

Moise was killed at his private residence in Port-au-Prince on July 7, 2021. Investigators said a group of about 20 Colombian military-trained mercenaries had been hired in connection with the operation.

The president’s security detail came under scrutiny after failing to prevent the attack.

In May, four men were convicted in a Miami federal court over charges connected to the plot, including conspiracy to kill or kidnap Moise and providing material support for the operation. They could face life imprisonment.

US prosecutors said the men were linked to CTU Security, a Florida-based private security company, and had allegedly been attracted by the prospect of lucrative contracts after Moise was removed from power.

The assassination plunged Haiti further into political and security turmoil. The country has since struggled with gang violence and remains without a president, while preparations continue for elections scheduled for December, subject to security conditions.

18 Suspects Transferred to US Over 2021 Killing of Haitian President Moïse

Loading

Continue Reading

Trending