As UK parents travel to the United States to sue TikTok following the deaths of their children, a Wokingham grandparent asks whether it’s time to rethink childhood in the age of algorithms.
Why I’m writing this
I’m writing this not as a politician or a technology expert, but as a grandparent.
Like many families in Wokingham, I have grandchildren growing up in a world where social media is not an optional extra — it is part of everyday life. Platforms like TikTok and YouTube shape how children learn, communicate, relax and see the world, often long before adults fully understand what they are being shown.
Recent news that UK parents have travelled to the United States to sue TikTok after the deaths of their children has forced many families, including my own, to pause and ask an uncomfortable but necessary question:
Should children under 16 be on social media at all?
This article looks at the latest developments behind those lawsuits, the role algorithms play in children’s online experiences, the benefits social media can bring when used well — and why my own instinct is increasingly to favour stronger limits. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I do believe this is a conversation we need to have openly and calmly.
UK parents taking TikTok to court in the US
In a landmark and deeply distressing development, several British parents have travelled to the United States to begin legal action against TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance.
Their children, aged between 11 and 14, died in circumstances the families believe may be linked to harmful content surfaced by TikTok’s algorithms. The parents allege that their children were exposed to dangerous material — including content associated with high-risk challenges and self-harm — without actively searching for it.
Crucially, the families say TikTok has refused to release their children’s account data, including details of what videos were shown to them in the days and weeks before their deaths. Because TikTok is headquartered in the US, the parents are seeking accountability through the American courts, where disclosure of evidence may be compelled.
For these families, this is not about compensation. It is about answers — and about preventing other parents from experiencing the same unimaginable loss.
As a grandparent, it is impossible to read these accounts without thinking: What if this were my family?
You can read more about this on the BBC website here
Why algorithms matter more than individual videos
This debate isn’t simply about the existence of harmful videos online. Content like that has always existed in one form or another.
What has changed is how content is delivered.
Modern platforms are driven by algorithms designed to maximise engagement. In simple terms:
- A child watches a video
- The system measures how long they stay, whether they replay it, how they react
- The algorithm then serves more content designed to hold their attention
The concern many parents now express is that children don’t need to go looking for dangerous content. It can be delivered to them — repeatedly — because it is engaging, provocative or emotionally intense.
For adults, this can already be addictive.
For children, whose brains are still developing judgement, impulse control and emotional regulation, it can be overwhelming.
What is an Algorithm Answered
A balanced view: social media can also be positive
It’s important to say this clearly: TikTok and YouTube are not inherently bad.
Used well, they can be:
- Educational, offering lessons in maths, science, history, languages and practical skills
- Creative, encouraging music, art, editing and storytelling
- Social, helping children stay connected to friends and family
- Inclusive, giving young people a sense of belonging and representation
Many parents will recognise YouTube as a homework helper. Many grandparents will have received TikTok videos from grandchildren as a way of staying connected and sharing a laugh.
The issue isn’t that these platforms exist.
The issue is that they are designed primarily to maximise engagement, not to protect young minds.
My instinct: is it time to ban social media for under-16s?
I want to be honest about my own position.
My gut feeling, shaped by reading about these cases and thinking about my grandchildren, is that children under 16 should not be on social media platforms at all.
That may sound strong — and I’m genuinely open to debate — but this is why I feel that way:
- We accept age limits for alcohol, driving and gambling because children are not developmentally ready
- We know social media platforms are intentionally addictive
- We know age limits are easy to bypass
- We know algorithms can expose children to harmful content without them seeking it
From that perspective, a ban isn’t moral panic. It’s risk management.
Is that view too far? The arguments against a ban
I also recognise that many people disagree — and they raise valid points.
Critics of a blanket ban argue that:
- Children will still access platforms secretly
- Bans could push behaviour underground and reduce parental oversight
- Social media is how young people socialise
- Not all platforms are the same — some are mainly communication or educational tools
There is also concern that excluding children entirely could harm digital literacy or isolate vulnerable young people.
These arguments deserve serious consideration.
A more focused question: what should children be protected from?
Where the debate often becomes more constructive is when we distinguish between communication and algorithmic feeds.
There is a meaningful difference between:
- Messaging friends and family
- Watching a teacher explain algebra on YouTube
- Being drawn into an endless, personalised feed designed to keep you scrolling
So perhaps the real issue isn’t social media as a whole, but algorithm-driven platforms optimised for adult attention.
That leads to a more precise — and possibly more realistic — question:
Should under-16s be shielded from algorithm-driven social feeds, while still having access to age-appropriate communication and educational tools?
Questions for parents and grandparents in Wokingham
Rather than telling families what to do, I want to pose some honest questions:
- Do you know what your child or grandchild’s recommended feed looks like right now?
- Have you ever sat and watched their “For You” page without interrupting?
- Do they know how to block accounts or report harmful content?
- Are direct messages open to strangers?
- If something disturbing appeared, would they tell you — or worry about losing their phone?
- Are you relying on age limits that are easy to bypass?
These are not accusations. They are prompts for reflection.
Why this debate matters now
Governments around the world are beginning to act:
- Australia has introduced under-16 social media restrictions
- The UK has strengthened children’s safety duties under the Online Safety Act
- The US is debating new protections for children online
The fact that UK parents now feel compelled to seek justice in US courts shows how serious — and unresolved — this issue has become.
This is no longer theoretical. It is happening now.
A call for calm, informed debate
I don’t believe the answer lies in shouting “ban everything”, nor in dismissing concerns as overreaction.
I do believe:
- Children deserve protection proportionate to risk
- Parents deserve transparency from platforms
- Technology companies should not mark their own homework
- Families should talk openly, without fear or blame
Perhaps the most important question of all is this:
If these platforms were being invented today, knowing what we now know about their impact on children, would we design them the same way — and would we allow under-16s unrestricted access?
That question doesn’t demand a single answer.
But it does demand that we ask it.
Over to you
I’d genuinely like to hear from parents, grandparents, teachers and young people in Wokingham:
- Should children under 16 be on social media at all?
- Should platforms be forced to change how content is recommended to young users?
- What works — and what doesn’t — in your own family?
This is a conversation worth having — before more families are left searching for answers they should never need to ask.
