UK Seeks Public Input on Children Online: What Happens Next

The UK government's three-month consultation on how children experience the internet wrapped up on 26 May 2026, drawing responses from schools, tech companies, charities, and individual citizens. Gov.uk has released the numbers; the window closed on schedule.

From March to late May 2026, the consultation — called Growing up in the online world — asked people to share thoughts on a straightforward but sprawling question: how should digital platforms be held responsible for protecting children? The exercise covered familiar ground — social media's effects, how algorithms decide what content children see — but added something new. For the first time in a UK-wide policy conversation, the government included questions about AI systems built into those platforms. Not just algorithmic recommendation feeds, but generative AI tools that can create text, images, and other content in real time.

That shift matters. Until now, UK regulators talked about "the tech problem" as one thing. This consultation treats AI as a separate set of risks requiring its own rules. That approach aligns with what the EU is already doing through its AI Act, which bans certain AI uses that could harm minors. It also dovetails with work Ofcom — the UK's broadcast and internet regulator — is undertaking under the 2023 Online Safety Act.

How the Existing Rules Work — and What May Need to Change

The Online Safety Act 2023 handed Ofcom the main job: make sure platforms assess risks, check ages where needed, and moderate harmful content. But this new consultation hints the government may be considering whether that law goes far enough. The question on the table for policymakers: should there be dedicated rules for AI — not just tougher penalties for platforms that break existing ones, but entirely new duties written into law? The responses to this consultation will shape that decision. They don't bind ministers, but when thousands of people and organizations weigh in on a topic like child safety, that carries real political weight.

The Global Policy Watch noted in March that the government specifically asked about new obligations AI developers should face — a direct signal of where Whitehall's thinking is headed.

The Wait Ahead

One uncertain variable sits at the center of what comes next: timing. The government has not said when it will publish its formal response to what it heard. With this many submissions and the AI dimension making things more complex, a White Paper or policy statement before the end of 2026 is possible. But it is not certain. Departments typically spend six to twelve months digesting consultation responses before publishing their thoughts. When the topic touches on lobbying pressure from major US tech companies — and children's digital welfare almost always does — those timelines often stretch longer.

For those tracking UK digital policy closely, the milestones to watch are straightforward: when the government releases its formal response, whether Ofcom updates its guidance to address the AI angle, and whether a Digital Children's Safety Bill or something similar appears in the government's next legislative agenda. The consultation itself has done its work. What the government chooses to do with what it learned is still unwritten.

A Broader Cultural Moment

The consultation is not happening in isolation. Playwright James Graham — whose work has long explored questions of national identity and shared citizenship — is bringing a television version of his play Dear England to the BBC in May 2026. The original stage production examined English identity through the lens of recent football history. Moving it to television means far more people will see it, people who would never attend the National Theatre.

On the surface, the two events seem separate: a government asking who children are becoming online, and an artist asking what England itself is becoming. But both speak to the same underlying worry — what binds a society together when its shared spaces, online and offline, feel fragmented and unsafe. The data cannot tell us whether they form a genuine cultural moment. But they are both asking versions of the same question.