Scale of online harms hitting children laid bare: one in ten report receiving sexual messages while more than a third exposed to violent or criminal content
A new Office for National Statistics survey has laid bare the scale of harmful content and contact children in England and Wales face online, with 12 per cent of 13 to 15-year-olds receiving at least one sexual message in the year to February and 37 per cent of 10 to 15-year-olds exposed to violent or criminal content. The findings are likely to intensify pressure on social media platforms over algorithms that critics say can steer young people towards disturbing material, and come as the Government prepares plans to ban social media for under-16s, though these are not expected to become law until next year.
Nearly one in five children who received sexual messages got them from adults aged 18 or over, with girls (25 per cent) far more likely than boys (12 per cent) to be targeted this way; most messages arrived via private message, and 68 per cent of recipients found them unwanted. Separately, 19 per cent of children saw significant amounts of content encouraging eating disorders, 15 per cent saw sexual images or videos, and 12 per cent encountered self-harm content, with most exposure described as unintentional. The survey also found heavy internet use, with 84 per cent of 10 to 15-year-olds online for three or more hours on weekend days, alongside high use of smartphones and video-based platforms.
- 12% of 13-15s received sexual messages online in the past year
- 37% of children exposed to violent or criminal online content
- Girls far more likely to receive unwanted sexual messages than boys
New here? Start with this
Nearly one in five children have received an unwanted sexual message online, and more than a third have been exposed to violent or criminal content, according to a new survey by the Office for National Statistics covering children aged 10 to 15 in England and Wales. The findings cover the year to February and look at what young people see and receive across social media, messaging apps and video platforms, including sexual content, material promoting eating disorders and self-harm, and unwanted contact from adults.
The results feed into a wider, ongoing debate about how much responsibility social media companies bear for what their algorithms show to young users, and whether current safeguards are strong enough. This is playing out against the backdrop of the Online Safety Act, existing UK legislation designed to make platforms more accountable for harmful content, and separate government plans to restrict social media access for under-16s, which are not expected to take effect until next year.
Because the survey draws on children's own reports of what they encountered online, it offers a rare direct measure of everyday risks young people face, rather than relying solely on company data or parental accounts. That makes it a significant reference point for policymakers, tech firms and campaigners as they weigh what further action, if any, is needed to protect children online.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Child safety advocates and many parents argue that findings on this scale demand decisive action, including the planned under-16s social media restrictions and tighter regulation of recommendation algorithms. They point out that most harmful exposure is described as unintentional, suggesting platform design rather than deliberate seeking is steering children towards dangerous content, and that self-regulation by tech companies has repeatedly failed to prevent adults contacting minors or vulnerable teenagers being served eating disorder and self-harm material. For them, the moral weight of protecting children from grooming and psychological harm outweighs concerns about convenience or commercial disruption.
The case against
Others, including some digital rights campaigners, technology firms and parents, argue that blanket bans and heavy-handed algorithmic regulation are blunt instruments that may prove unenforceable, easily circumvented by tech-savvy teenagers, and could cut children off from legitimate educational, social and creative benefits of online platforms. They contend that responsibility should rest more with parental oversight, digital literacy education and targeted enforcement against offenders, rather than restricting an entire age group, warning that heavy-handed state intervention risks setting a precedent for broader curbs on online expression while doing little to address harms that migrate to less regulated corners of the internet.