51吃瓜

鈥淭he screens just took over!鈥� Keir Starmer declaimed against the evils of social media, unafraid to identify tech as the common enemy of people, young and old.

Actually, the outgoing British Prime Minister didn鈥檛 say those exact words: A character in Toy Story 5 did. But the sentiments are a match. Earlier this year, Starmer tightened online safety laws to include AI chatbots; now he has announced a ban on social media for under-16s. Yet even the minister responsible for implementing the ban sounded gloomy when she : 鈥淚 have no doubt children who are currently on social media, for whom it鈥檚 an integral part of their lives, will try and get around the ban, and many will succeed.鈥�

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall conceded the restrictions would not be foolproof but that the move was about 鈥渞esetting expectations鈥� for teens and even younger children over what they had access to. She might have added that teenagers in particular have a habit of ignoring, contravening and sometimes rebelling against expectations. And they will do so again.

The ban will be as successful as pretty much any other ban. It will have effects, probably spectacular effects, but not the ones intended. That鈥檚 the thing about bans: They incite people. The instant a thing or piece of behavior is prohibited, it instantly becomes more attractive. Even people who haven鈥檛 experienced whatever is banned before can hardly wait.

Starmer is missing the irony. He鈥檚 not the only one, though he might have taken time to glance back in history at other notable attempts to extinguish habits that have only inflamed them. Here鈥檚 a guide to some of the more combustible cases.

Alcohol

, the prevention by law of alcohol manufacture and sale in the United States, was inarguably the most paradoxically productive ban in history. It became the catalyst for the growth of illegal liquor production and its widespread sale, as well as the rise of unlicensed nightclubs and bars owned and run by opportunist entrepreneurs. It cultivated a network of organized crime that thrives to the present day, remaining Prohibition鈥檚 most enduring legacy: the .

At a time when industrialization was transforming the US and an embryonic consumer society was beginning to take shape, American culture was also affected by a religious revival that encouraged the abolition of slavery and temperance 鈥� this being the abstinence from alcoholic drink. The influence of what was known as the became felt at political levels. In 1846, the state of Maine introduced a legal ban on alcohol; similar legislation followed.

In 1920, Congress passed the National Prohibition Act, better known as the after US Representative Andrew J. Volstead. The popular appetite for booze was undiminished, of course, and smugglers, known and bootleggers (from smugglers鈥� practice of concealing bottles in their boots) initially brought in liquor from abroad. Soon, unlawful distilleries and distribution networks emerged, which became manna from heaven for the then primitive, secret Italian body of gangsters who controlled operations until and beyond Prohibition鈥檚 end in 1933.

By then, the Mafia, once a loose assembly of miscreants, had transformed into a sophisticated national arrangement. It had its own hierarchy and amenable politicians who helped it become a near-invulnerable criminal enterprise.

Books

Historically, religious and state interests have banned reading material in attempts to control what passes as knowledge. Chinese Emperor Qin Shi Huang started the trend in 213 BC when he ordered the of history and philosophy books. The Spanish Inquisition, established 1478, parts of Dante鈥檚 Divine Comedy, while the Catholic Church scientific texts by Galileo. American Puritans Thomas Morton鈥檚 New English Canaan in 1637 for satirizing their ways.

Fears of political rebellion motivated suppression in the 19th and 20th centuries. Karl Marx鈥檚 The Communist Manifesto faced in countries like Germany in 1878 under Anti-Socialist Laws. The concept of destroying books to suppress independent thought and maintain social conformity was explored by Ray Bradbury in his classic dystopian novel, Fahrenheit 451.

Sexually explicit themes have led to famous obscenity battles. The US and United Kingdom James Joyce鈥檚 Ulysses from 1922 until 1933. Similarly, England D.H. Lawrence鈥檚 Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover from 1928 until 1960, when a landmark , Regina v Penguin Books, Ltd, legally permitted its publication. The UK legally prohibited Vladimir Nabokov鈥檚 from 1955 to 1959. The US and UK Henry Miller鈥檚 Tropic of Cancer for nearly 30 years starting in 1934, until a 1964 US Supreme Court , Grove Press v Gerstein, finally cleared it. In all cases, the attempt to stop people reading the books whetted the appetite of readers.

Many books we now regard as classics, such as Erich Maria Remarque鈥檚 All Quiet on the Western Front and George Orwell鈥檚 Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four faced bans in and the , respectively.

Starting in the 1970s, US school boards J.D. Salinger鈥檚 The Catcher in the Rye from curricula. They officially prohibited teachers from recommending what became a seminal novel due to its vulgar language and themes of teenage rebellion.

Pop music

Hundreds of popular songs have faced total radio bans, varying wildly between the UK and US due to different broadcasting laws. While the UK鈥檚 BBC issued official national decrees, American censorship relied on uncoordinated bans from major regional radio networks. Censors on both sides generally targeted songs across five broad categories.

1. On grounds of taste: The BBC regularly banned 鈥渢een tragedy鈥� discs for being too morbid. Ray Peterson鈥檚 Laura I Love Her (1960) and The Shangri-Las鈥� of the Pack (1964) became prohibited in the UK due to romanticizing death. Yet both tracks aired freely in the US and became best-sellers.

2. Sexually explicit material: The BBC controversially Frankie Goes to Hollywood鈥檚 Relax (1984) from its airwaves for its lyrics (鈥渨hen you wanna come鈥�). Paradoxically, the scandal helped it become an immense hit.

3. Drug-related themes: Dozens of major American stations the Byrds鈥� Eight Miles High (1966) from dozens of major US stations after a prominent American industry journal, Bill Gavin鈥檚 Record Report, labeled it a 鈥渄rug song,鈥� severely halting its commercial momentum. Not so in the UK, where the track met with far less scrutiny and bolstered the band鈥檚 strengthening reputation.

4. Disrespectful or political content: The BBC totally the Sex Pistols鈥� anti-monarchist anthem, God Save the Queen (1977), for disrespecting the Royal Family. It remained legal to buy in stores and is, of course, now a classic.

5. Shadow ban: Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, the media giant Clear Channel issued a massive corporate to over 1,100 US radio stations, effectively wiping Bob Dylan鈥檚 Knockin鈥� on Heaven鈥檚 Door off the airwaves.

Piety and pop music never mix well: The latter is brash, irreverent, unruly and often deliberately offensive. It鈥檚 meant to be. Outsiders never quite get this.

Religion

Legally prohibiting a practice, excluding people or banishing things is one thing. Controlling beliefs, especially strongly-held beliefs based on spiritual apprehension rather than evidence is quite another. So, bans on religions have been scarce: just two in history 鈥� Albania in 1967, and Democratic Kampuchea (now Cambodia) in 1975.

• Albania: founded his country鈥檚 Communist Party and rose to prime minister in 1945. He drew support from the Soviet Union. As a stalwart devotee of Stalin, Hoxha adopted ruthless methods in his modernization program, confiscating land, nationalizing businesses and eliminating opponents. He also outlawed religion, closing churches, mosques and religious institutions and placing the state in charge of Albania鈥檚 cultural and intellectual activities. Possessing a Bible or Quran became an offense punishable by years in prison, until the regime collapsed in December 1990. Hoxha himself came from a Muslim family.

• Kampuchea: In 1975, Cambodia鈥檚 five-year civil war ended and the Khmer Rouge rebels led by communist assumed control, proclaimed 鈥測ear zero鈥� and embarked on a reconstruction process that killed 1.7 million people, almost a quarter of the population, and considered parents unnecessary. Like Hoxha, Pol Pot was an adherent of Stalinism. The Khmer Rouge destroyed about 95% of Buddhist temples and wrecked both Christian churches and Muslim mosques. Many surviving sacred buildings transformed into pigsties, storage sheds or prisons. Invading Vietnamese overthrew the Khmer Rouge government in January 1979.

In both cases, religious belief returned. Albania is now constitutionally secular and its main denominations are Islam and Christianity. Theravada Buddhism is dominant in Cambodia, though there are Muslim and Christian minorities.

Cannabis

The legal suppression of cannabis became a catalyst for its global visibility. First banned federally in the US via the 1937 Marijuana Tax , the prohibition backfired by piquing public curiosity.

The 1936 propaganda film perfectly illustrated this backfire. Originally conceived as a public warning about the 鈥渄evil weed鈥� driving youth into insanity and crime, the movie acquired a cult status as a popular source of amusement and unintentional comedy. By the 1960s, cultural serendipity transformed the plant. A countercultural generation adopted cannabis as a symbol of defiance. It became an emblem of to the Vietnam War and of alternative values in the US, UK and beyond.

The irony deepened. By forcing cannabis into the same underground market as hard narcotics, the law inadvertently turned cannabis into a 鈥済ateway,鈥� granting users access to more addictive and destructive drugs like heroin and cocaine. Decades of enforcement failed to crush demand. If anything, they revealed the futility of punitive laws.

Public perceptions shifted in the 21st century. In 2012, Colorado and Washington became the first US states to recreational use, initiating a period of reform. Today, the transition of a once-outlawed weed into a lawful, taxable commodity and one with medical value, serves as the final irony. Once a symbol of rebellion, cannabis is now an industrial .

Australia鈥檚 social media

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese this ban in December 2025 amid public anxiety over online harms, mental health and addictive algorithms. He intended the legislation to protect young people by restricting access to major platforms, though evidence emerging suggests this has not been the case.

A central reason is the widespread use of workarounds. These include creating accounts with false dates of birth, using older accounts, borrowing adults鈥� accounts and exploiting weaknesses in age-verification systems. Rather than eliminating social media use, the ban simply changed how many young people accessed it.

Independent economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research discovered that only in four teenagers obeyed the ban. Australia鈥檚 own eSafety Commissioner reinforced the same pattern. One study by BMJ found that around of teenagers under age 16 are still using social media. Many social media platforms don鈥檛 even use , as Australian law doesn鈥檛 mandate its application. In other words, the enforcement mechanism barely registered in everyday use.

Additionally, the BMJ study found that the ban has barely affected how much time teenagers under 16 spend on social media. It has not eliminated access, nor meaningfully reduced it. Australia鈥檚 social media ban was an effective concession to public anxiety, Albanese鈥檚 attempt to assuage a moral panic. But not a practical policy capable of governing the digital environment it claims to regulate.

The legislation also reflected a naive assumption that technology companies could effectively police users鈥� ages and online behavior. This underestimated both the technical limitations of age assurance and the ingenuity of young users. At the same time, public debate concentrated overwhelmingly on the risks of social media while paying comparatively little attention to its educational, social and communicative value.

[Ellis Cashmore is the author of .]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.