When I arrived at 10 Downing Street this morning to hear the prime minister announce the UK's social media ban for those under 16, I had to surrender my phone for security purposes.
The brief unease I experienced may have offered a small glimpse into how many of the country's 13 to 15-year-olds were feeling, as they also awaited the outcome of months of deliberation and conjecture regarding their online activities.
Sir Keir Starmer's announcement was direct and unequivocal: yes, a ban will be implemented, yes, it will mirror Australia's approach, and yes, additional restrictions will affect older teenagers, aged 16 and 17, as well.
A nighttime prohibition is anticipated as part of this measure. The UK's strategy had been labeled "Australia Plus," and now the reasoning is clear.
However, Australia's ban has encountered well-known challenges, not least because the majority of children who possessed social media accounts before the prohibition took effect in December still have them.
The response from the UK government mirrors the same answer I receive every time an online safety measure is introduced.
There is acknowledgment that the ban will not be a "magic solution" but will still have some impact.
Sir Keir drew several parallels to laws concerning alcohol consumption: we recognize that some teenagers under 18 still drink, but we also know there are numerous instances when the law prevents it.
Yet we also understand that 16-year-olds can legally marry, engage in sexual activity, enlist in the military, and in certain parts of the UK, vote in some elections.
Should they not also be trusted on Instagram during the night?
Given the countless distressing accounts I have heard throughout my career about children encountering harm on gaming platforms and forums, it was unexpected to learn that they will be excluded.
However, they will need to disable livestreaming, as that is covered by the ban.
The key question: how will it be enforced?
The central question, of course, is how this will actually be put into practice.
I did inquire with the prime minister, but he did not provide a direct answer. Australia's shortcomings are believed to stem from weak age verification methods employed by tech companies.
I've heard from several irate industry contacts today that they were under the impression that Apple and Google would be responsible for controlling devices (since most people own either an Apple or Android phone).
This would mean that when someone under 16 sets up a device in the UK, they would be unable to download banned apps from the app stores.
The individuals I spoke to are taken aback that this no longer appears to be the case, and that it will fall to individual platforms.
And the timeline for them to devise a better alternative is tight: less than a year to meet the proposed implementation next spring.
Other experts contend that toxic online behavior is a societal issue rather than a technological one, and that the blunt approach of blocking the technology entirely is not the answer.
"Right diagnosis, wrong treatment" was the subject line of one email in my inbox earlier today.
A significant shift for the digital generation
Facebook launched in the UK 21 years ago, and other social networks soon followed.
This means there is a generation of young people who have grown up in this environment—flaws and all.
One reporter at the briefing with me made me feel quite old by confiding that YouTube—included in the ban—had been a vital resource for them during school.
I am still troubled by a message I received from a teenager not long ago who said that without social media they would be dead, because the community they had found online gave them reasons to live.
There are, of course, also many tragic instances of the exact opposite.
Campaigners—and government ministers—argue that tech companies have had years to do more to protect children and have failed to do so.
The companies contend that they have introduced numerous parental controls and blocked access to features they know to be harmful.
But Sir Nick Clegg, a former senior executive at Meta, once said there were so many parental controls that parents were overwhelmed by them and didn't use them. I think many parents can relate to that.
My sources indicate that tech companies will not oppose the ban as long as they believe it is applied fairly to all of them—but I am not convinced that all of them feel that way today.
There is also concern that banning the major mainstream apps will drive children to darker, less regulated corners of the internet with fewer or even no protections in place.
There is a possibility that the entire initiative could end up in judicial review due to the speed at which it has been introduced, just a few weeks after the conclusion of a massive public consultation—which would likely delay it.
Political implications for Starmer
There are definite "prime minister's legacy" undertones to the news, given the broader political landscape at the moment.
And finally, there may also be a Donald Trump-shaped obstacle in the way.
Sir Keir has not spoken to him about this yet, but he will see him later today at the G7 summit, where he is now heading.
Trump is protective of his US-based tech companies and has previously lashed out against attempts by other countries to regulate them.
The US government responded to the public consultation by insisting that a ban was not the solution.
The same US companies that Starmer now seeks to control are also investing millions of dollars in their UK operations and infrastructure.
Tech and AI are key priorities in the government's plans for economic growth. As one former senior government adviser once put it to me, "there is no Plan B."
The prime minister must walk a very fine line between cracking down on them and promoting the UK as a favorable place for them to operate. We will see in the coming months whether any of them choose to vote with their feet.
Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.