The UK government’s proposed ban on social media for under-16s has produced the expected argument. Some see it as a necessary protection for children. Others worry it will be hard to enforce, will raise privacy problems, or will simply push young people into less regulated online spaces [1].
I think there is another question worth asking: what are we expecting young people to do instead?
This is not just a question for children. Increasingly online lives affect all of us. We work online, shop online, argue online, entertain ourselves online, and often maintain friendships online. Some of this is useful. But it is not the same as being with people.
The danger is that we treat social media rather like we have treated alcohol at times: as though prohibition alone can solve a much deeper social problem. If you remove a behaviour without providing a better route to the same human need, people usually find another way to meet it. Often not a healthier one.
The need, in this case, is connection.
A recent UC Davis-led study on loneliness and social isolation makes an important distinction. It suggests that loneliness may matter more for cognitive health than isolation alone [2]. In other words, the problem is not simply how many people are around you. It is whether you feel connected, recognised and part of something.
That makes intuitive sense. You can be in a crowd and feel lonely. You can live alone and feel quite secure. The brain is not just counting contacts. It is assessing whether the social environment feels safe, meaningful and supportive.
This is where our discussion of health often becomes too narrow. We talk about diet, exercise, sleep and alcohol. We are less good at talking about the health value of a regular table, a familiar room, a conversation that does not need to be scheduled three weeks in advance.
Historically, alcohol has played a role here. Not because it is necessary for sociability, but because it has often been how people enter social spaces. The pub, the bar, the club, the shared meal: these are not trivial settings. They are part of social infrastructure.
A recent report from WPI Strategy, commissioned by the British Beer & Pub Association, argued that pubs generate substantial wellbeing value through social interaction, reduced loneliness and stronger community ties [3]. We should treat industry-linked reports with appropriate caution, of course. But the underlying point is right: pubs are not merely places where alcohol is sold. At their best, they are informal, low-pressure places where people belong.
The challenge is that alcohol brings its own costs. It can help people feel at ease initially, but it also affects judgement, sleep, mood and health. So, the answer cannot simply be “more drinking”. Nor should it be a puritanical retreat from the social world.
The more interesting task is to protect the social function while reducing the harm. That means preserving pubs, clubs, cafés, community spaces and shared rituals. It also means making room for drinks that allow people to participate without always making alcohol the price of entry.
If we are serious about loneliness, we need more than warnings about screens. We need places to go, reasons to gather, and rituals that make connection easy.
A healthier society will not be built only by banning what harms us. It will be built by making the good things easier to choose.
—Professor David Nutt
References
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-media-to-be-banned-for-under-16s-in-landmark-government-move-to-givekids-their-childhood-back
[2] https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/loneliness-drives-cognitive-impairment-and-shorter-life-more-social-isolation-new-study
[3] https://wpistrategy.squarespace.com/pubs-as-social-infrastructure
