15 April 2026
Family Talk: Mary Glasgow on smartphones, online harm and why a blanket ban may not be the answer.
I n one of our most pressing Family Talk episodes, Lucy Johnston speaks to Mary Glasgow, Chief Executive of Scotland’s children’s charity Children First, about the growing panic over children and smartphone use and why a blanket ban on social media for under-16s could “do more harm than good.”
As England considers restricting social media access for children, the conversation opens with an uncomfortable truth: the evidence of harm is no longer fringe. Anxiety, distress, sleep problems and behavioural issues are increasingly being linked to smartphone use and are rising sharply, leaving families and carers desperate for action.
A complex problem with no simple fix
Mary warns that panic-driven solutions risk repeating old mistakes.
“I don’t think jumping to solve a very complex, nuanced, difficult problem with very blunt solutions is going to be the answer,” she says.
She is clear the threat is real, and it is starting frighteningly young. Lucy highlights data from the Department for Education’s Children of the 2020 study: 98% of two-year-olds now watch screens on a typical day, often for more than two hours. Children with the highest screen use had smaller vocabularies and were twice as likely to show emotional and behavioural difficulties.
“The fact that it’s now babies and toddlers is really worrying,” Mary says.
Why early exposure matters
Mary is clear this is not a harmless distraction. Babies and toddlers need faces, language, movement and responsive relationships, not passive screen time.
“It just terrifies me that we allow our babies and our toddlers to spend so much time on screens at such a crucial stage in their development,” she says.
“We need to wake up to the dangers.”
What children are actually experiencing online
Drawing on decades of frontline work, Mary says Children First has seen an explosion in children seeking help for anxiety, sleeplessness, low self-esteem, online bullying and exposure to violent and sexual content since around 2010.
What shook her most was speaking directly to young people.
“I sometimes think I’m exaggerating,” she admits, “and children have literally looked at me and said, ‘It is much worse than that.’”
Children described eight and nine-year-olds being exposed to pornography and influencers pushing damaging messages about women and girls. In one case, a child explained a nine-year-old’s sudden misogynistic language with a single sentence: “That’s what he’s watching.”
“None of the platforms are safe,” she says. “Nowhere is safe.”
The reality of online risk
Mary warns that grooming, exploitation and extortion are happening across mainstream apps. Offenders pose as peers, build trust and exploit insecurities created by online content itself.
Her message to adults who feel reassured because a child is “safe in their bedroom” is stark:
“The internet is a place. You don’t know where they’re going when they’re in their room.”
The risks of a blanket ban
With pressure growing to ban under-16s from social media, Mary urges caution.
“It might be part of the solution,” she says, “but I don’t think it’s the whole solution.”
Her biggest concern is unintended consequences.
“We may force some of the most vulnerable children into corners of the dark web,” she warns, “where they will be even more vulnerable than they are currently.”
She also questions how a ban would be enforced, and who would be held responsible when children inevitably find ways around it.
“If children do get around the ban, who are we going to hold accountable?” she asks.
“Are we going to criminalise children? Are we going to criminalise their parents? Of course we’re not.”
In her view, placing responsibility on children themselves is a failure of adult duty.
“Laying the responsibility on children is an abdication of our responsibility as adults,” she says.
A public health approach
Rather than a headline-grabbing ban, Mary argues this should be treated like a public health issue, similar to smoking or seatbelts, with clear evidence, honest messaging, cultural change and regulation that holds tech companies to account.
“Clear is kind,” she says. “People want clarity.”
She is also clear that families and carers cannot be left to manage this alone.
“I think it’s really unfair that we expect parents and carers, under pressure, to manage this incredibly powerful machine on their own,” she says.
What carers can actually do
For foster carers and those supporting children with trauma, Mary says boundaries matter, such as limiting device use or keeping phones out of bedrooms. However, she warns that sudden or rigid restrictions can destabilise children who rely on the online world as a coping mechanism.
“Use the skills you already have,” she says. “Explain that your job is to keep them safe. Go at a gentle pace. Talk. Negotiate. Compromise.”
Listening to children
Mary believes more research is needed and that children must be part of shaping the response.
“We just don’t know enough about what children experience online,” she says.
“We cannot make decisions without children, because we’ll miss stuff. They understand what’s going on much better than we do.”