The first UK government guidance on young children’s use of tablets, smartphones and other screens, expected in April, cannot come soon enough. The laissez-faire approach to the boom in social media, handheld devices and other digital technology was arguably nowhere less suitable than when such machines were placed in front of babies. The Department for Education’s ongoing Children of the 2020s study has found that 98% of two-year-olds watch screens on a typical day for more than two hours. Those who spent the most time had smaller vocabularies, and were twice as likely as other children to show signs of emotional and behavioural difficulties.
Correlation must not be mistaken for causation. This is still a relatively new area of research, and much remains uncertain. But the findings of a recent survey by the charity Kindred Squared, combined with observations by teachers, are highly concerning. Answers from 1,000 primary-school staff revealed that 37% of four-year-olds arrived without basic life skills such as dressing and eating in 2025 – up from 33% two years earlier.
Some of these may have additional needs. And there is no suggestion from the charity that screens are the only issue. Stresses caused by the high cost of living, cuts to local early years services and other factors affect the quality of the youngest children’s lives. But many teachers, along with one of their unions, the NASUWT, believe that the impact of screens must be addressed, with parents as well as children encouraged to prioritise books and bricks over swipes and clicks.
The World Health Organization recommends that children under two should not use screens at all. But even if such prohibitions are unlikely to be heeded by the majority, ministers could be more ambitious in making the case for a precautionary approach. The importance of early speech, communication and emotional development should be clearly explained, and parents given support when they need it.
Since global outrage was sparked earlier this month by nudification on Grok, and the ease with which such images could be shared on X, the debate around regulation has dramatically shifted. Over recent days, Kemi Badenoch has thrown her party’s weight behind an age limit of 16 for social media apps, following Australia’s example. With a number of Labour MPs sympathetic, the government is under pressure to agree.
Those pushing for tougher rules are right that existing regulations are full of holes. Age verification should have been introduced sooner. Addictive features should never have been allowed on children’s accounts. But in the rush to gain political advantage from the current spike in concern, there is a risk of issues becoming confused. When considering screens and preschool children, a key question is what other activities (books, toys, ballgames) are being replaced, and why this matters. Weighing the impact of social media and smartphones on teenagers involves different calculations. Nudification apps are a distinct problem. It could be argued that the new focus on under-16s risks distracting attention from the more general danger posed by sexually explicit AI-generated material.
Ofcom’s prompt response to the Grok/X nudification outcry was welcome. Politicians and campaigners may be right that under-16s’ social media use should be restricted. Warnings about screens and toddlers should be heeded. The wider message of the past few weeks is that democratic oversight of the tech industry needs to accelerate.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
