Older teenagers in the UK will face an overnight social media curfew, the government has announced – though they will be able to opt out of it by changing their account settings.

It would mean apps such as Instagram, TikTok and YouTube being set to be unavailable by default to 16 and 17-year-olds between midnight and 06:00.

The government also wants “addictive” features such as auto-play and infinite scroll to be set to be disabled, saying – combined with the curfew – the measures will improve teenagers’ focus, sleep quality and family life.

However, campaigners such as Ellen Roome, who believes her 14-year-old son Jools Sweeney died in an online challenge gone wrong in 2022, does not think the plan goes far enough as teenagers can switch the setting off.

“I just think it’s not good enough really just to have a product you can switch off, it’s a bit like offering a 17-year-old a bottle of alcohol and then moving it slightly out of arms reach, they can just drag it back in, I really wish they could go stronger and harder on these things,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

The new plans follow the announcement in June that under-16s in the UK would be banned entirely from a range of platforms.

It’s not yet known where exactly the opt-out button will be. Parents currently have various options to control their child’s screen time through the devices they use, as well as by changing settings on individual apps.

Online safety minister Kanishka Narayan defended the policy on BBC One’s Breakfast programme, saying the combination of the curfew and limiting auto-play features meant that “Britain is already going to be the most robust place in the world when it comes to regulating” tech companies.

Speaking on the Today programme, Alex, who is 17, said while there were questions about whether being able to opt out “defeated the point”, he felt it could still help by reminding young people how long they are spending on social apps.

Meanwhile 17-year-old Confidence, who said she often spent up to six hours a day on social media, said she would prefer to opt out of the curfew – adding if people her age are trusted to make decisions about university, they should be able to control their own screen time.

In an earlier statement, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said the measures would be “crucial in helping young people get the sleep they need, focus on school and college, and spend more quality time with family and friends, all of which are fundamental to building a happy, healthy and fulfilling adult life”.

“We want young people to enjoy the benefits of technology while having the tools to make the online world a place where they can thrive.”

Laura Trott, the Conservative shadow education secretary, described the plans as a “dog’s dinner”.

“Either they think 16 and 17-year-olds should be on social media or they don’t, but curfews they can simply switch off won’t achieve anything,” she said.

The government said further measures would be aimed at helping children use AI chatbots safely – including by making providers introduce regular breaks for under-18s.

It says it will aim to lay its new proposed measures in front of Parliament by the end of 2026, with the aim that they take effect alongside its social media ban for under-16s next spring.

But some child safety charities and experts have cast doubt on the effectiveness or promise of a midnight curfew for older UK teens.

“While we welcome these measures for older teens, this latest move is yet another piecemeal set of announcements, not the comprehensive plan for children’s safety that’s required,” said Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation.

He added that Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer “leaves office having announced a social media ban without a plan” – with his likely successor Andy Burnham to “inherit a series of missed opportunities”.

Prof Sonia Livingstone, an expert in children’s digital rights at the London School of Economics, said a curfew could harm vulnerable children by limiting their access to social media when they might need it most.

“If it’s a curfew on companies using push notifications to wake someone up in the night, absolutely have a curfew,” Prof Livingstone told the BBC.

“But if it’s a curfew that prevents a child in need of support or help or comfort reaching out to trusted sources in the middle of the night, I think that’s quite harmful potentially.”

Dame Rachel de Souza, children’s commissioner for England, said: “We have to listen to young people. They don’t want a ban, but they do want to be protected from addictive, infinite scrolling.”

She added: “I want to know more about how the policies, such as a curfew, will be delivered and will be watching closely to make sure they are effective – alongside pushing Ofcom to make full use of its powers to make the online world safer for children.”

Previous attempts to restrict what young people can see online – for example Australia’s social media ban – have been hampered by VPNs, which can hide the true location of an internet user.

But the government said it would not be taking any action to restrict them in the UK for now, saying they were useful for whistle-blowers, minority groups and family privacy.

It cued findings from research it commissioned, external which indicated there was little to show VPNs were being used by many children to get around age checks.

“We have decided not to limit VPNs today and that’s the primary conclusion for now but it is something we will continue to review,” Kanishka Narayan told BBC Breakfast.

The government trialled a range of possible interventions, including overnight curfews, in the homes of some families across the UK.

It saw 300 teens have their social apps disabled entirely, blocked overnight from 21:00 and 07:00 or capped to one hour’s use – with some also seeing no such changes at all – in order to compare their experiences over one month.

In a report published on Tuesday, the government cited its curfew trials as seeing the most sleep benefits, as well as more engaging and communicative family evenings, and a less burdensome set-up for parents.

It was also the most manageable option of the three to enforce, the report said.

“These findings show what parents have been telling us all along: when children spend less time on social media, the benefits are real,” Kendall said of the findings.

But Pete Etchells, professor of science communication at Bath Spa University, cautioned against relying too much on them.

“This is a small study that is one part of the puzzle in trying to understand how children and parents will navigate technology restrictions in a practical way,” he said.

Additional reporting by Chris Vallance

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world’s top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.