Supporters of the ban argue that children’s mental health has been damaged by constant online pressure. Features such as endless scrolling, personalised recommendations and social comparison can encourage excessive screen time and expose teenagers to content that may be inappropriate or harmful. Surveys conducted during the government consultation found strong support among parents for tougher rules on children’s access to social media.

However, critics question whether the ban can truly be enforced. A major challenge is that many young people are already highly skilled with technology. Previous studies have shown that some children have created accounts using false ages or moved to platforms with fewer restrictions. This creates a risk that a ban could simply push teenagers towards less regulated areas of the internet rather than keeping them safer.

Technology companies are expected to use age verification systems, such as identity checks or facial age estimation, to enforce the new rules. While these systems may reduce underage access, they are not expected to be perfect, and debates continue over privacy, accuracy and how much responsibility should fall on parents compared with technology companies.

The social media ban highlights a wider debate about how society should manage young people’s relationship with technology. Some experts believe age limits are necessary to protect children, while others argue that digital education, stronger parental controls and safer platform designs would be more effective long-term solutions.

Whether the policy succeeds or fails will depend on how effectively it can be enforced and whether it can balance child protection with teenagers’ desire to communicate, learn and participate in modern digital culture.

The post The UK’s Social Media Ban for Under-16s: Will It Work? appeared first on KIMU.

Advertising is not just background noise. It shapes habits, normalises behaviours, and reinforces cultural ideas about what is desirable and necessary. For decades, meat and dairy advertising has framed animal products as essential, celebratory, and unquestionable parts of daily life. By banning these ads, Amsterdam is challenging that narrative. It creates room for people to reflect, to question long held assumptions, and to imagine food systems that do not rely on the routine exploitation and killing of animals.

This policy is progressive because it aligns public messaging with scientific and ethical realities. Industrial meat and dairy production is one of the largest contributors to climate change, deforestation, water pollution, and biodiversity loss. At the same time, it is responsible for the suffering and slaughter of billions of animals every year, most of whom live short lives in intensive, confined conditions. Continuing to promote these products in public spaces while claiming to care about sustainability and animal welfare is deeply contradictory. Amsterdam’s ban acknowledges that contradiction and chooses to act.

The move is also positive for a vegan future because it helps rebalance a heavily skewed system. Plant based foods do not have the marketing budgets or political backing of the meat and dairy industries, yet they offer a clear path toward reducing environmental damage and ending large scale animal suffering. When cities stop amplifying meat advertising, they help level the playing field and allow plant based choices to be seen as normal, accessible, and socially supported.

This decision becomes even more significant when viewed alongside the broader issue of government subsidies. Across the world, most governments heavily subsidise meat and dairy production. Public money is used to support livestock farming, animal feed crops, and processing industries, often on a massive scale. These subsidies artificially lower the price of animal products and shield the industry from the true environmental and ethical costs of its practices.

This system is deeply wrong. Taxpayers are effectively forced to fund industries that drive climate breakdown, destroy ecosystems, and rely on routine animal cruelty. At the same time, plant based agriculture and sustainable food systems receive only a fraction of this support, despite offering solutions to many of the crises we face. It is a moral failure to use public funds to maintain a system that causes such widespread harm when better alternatives already exist.

Calling this situation unethical is not extreme, it is honest. Subsidising meat and dairy means subsidising suffering, pollution, and future instability. It means prioritising corporate interests over animal lives, environmental protection, and public health. Governments often justify these subsidies as necessary for food security or tradition, but these arguments fall apart when examined closely. Plant based food systems can feed more people using fewer resources, with far less damage and far greater ethical integrity.

Amsterdam’s ban on meat advertising does not solve everything, but it is a vital cultural and political signal. It shows that governments can choose to stop promoting harmful industries and start aligning public policy with compassion and reality. It points toward a future where public spaces reflect shared values of care, responsibility, and respect for life.

The proposal was jointly tabled by GroenLinks (Green/Left) and the Partij voor de Dieren (Party for the Animals), and was approved by 27 of the 45 seats on Amsterdam’s municipal council.

Amsterdam joins other Dutch municipalities such as Utrecht and Zwolle in banning meat and fossil fuel advertising, which voted to ban advertising from buses, shelters, and all screens visible in public, because of the impact on health and the climate in 2023.

Additionally, other Dutch cities, including The Hague, Delft and Nijmegen, have already introduced similar advertising bans, but Amsterdam is the first capital city to enact a ban on meat adverts.

For animals, this matters profoundly. Every step away from normalising meat consumption is a step toward fewer animals being bred, confined, and killed for profit. For the planet, it means acknowledging that real climate action requires changing what we eat and how we produce food. For society, it opens the door to a food culture rooted in empathy rather than exploitation.

Amsterdam has drawn a line and said enough. In doing so, it offers a glimpse of a future where vegan values are not marginal, but recognised as essential to a just and liveable world.

The post No More Violent Burger Billboards: Amsterdam Is the First City to Ban Meat Ads appeared first on KIMU.