As governments around the world consider stricter social media age restrictions and outright bans for under-16s, the digital landscape is facing its biggest change since social media started.

Protecting young people's mental health is a priority, but is banning access the best solution?

Striver founder Tim Chase sat down with Jude Mercer to discuss why moderating toxic hate, implementing smart safety measures, and offering better alternatives is the key to creating safer social media.

Why Tim Chase Believes Social Media Needs Smarter Safety Measures

Jude Mercer: On the upcoming social media restrictions and age bans being proposed for under-16s, what’s your take? Is this a positive step, or could it have unintended consequences?

Tim Chase: I think it’s a step in the right direction in terms of intent, but how it’s delivered is the most important thing.

Kids will always find a way around bans—they are smart and technically aware. Rather than just locking them out of existing platforms, we should offer them something better—something where they can actively participate.

The real issue isn't just access; it's the toxic, hateful content and manipulative algorithms designed to push outrage for views. If you moderate the top level of toxicity, you fix the core problem without having to lock everyone out.

Jude Mercer: This current generation has grown up around devices and social media. Why does that make a ban so difficult?

Tim Chase: They’ve grown up seeing their parents on social media and watching YouTubers on iPads; being on devices is second nature to them.

My generation was the "experiment" when Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok launched. Giving everyone total freedom to post whatever they wanted created a toxic mess.

Now, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need to take what works—connecting people and sharing great content—and make it safer so it doesn't damage mental health or encourage online abuse.

When the first car came out, there weren't seatbelts and people got hurt. We didn't ban cars—we added seatbelts, airbags, and speed limits. We need sensible safety measures on social media, not blanket bans.

Read More: Exclusive: Striver Founder Tim Chase on Building a Hate-Free Future for Football Fans

How Striver Offers A Safer Alternative For Young Football Fans

Jude Mercer: How does Striver act as an alternative to traditional social platforms?

Tim Chase: Most young people stay quiet on traditional social media because they know if they share an opinion or show a skill, they risk being bullied.

On Striver, we want to hear everyone's voice. You might not be a professional footballer, but maybe you're incredible at taking free-kicks or doing freestyle tricks. We build confidence by helping people find that one thing they're great at and giving them a safe place to shout about it.

Jude Mercer: From a football perspective, how could shutting under-16s out of social media impact the sports landscape?

Tim Chase: It could have a massive impact. Social media is where most people get their news, highlights, and inspiration. If you turn off under-16s across social media, you are turning them off from football, basketball, and every other sport.

Those under-16s looking up to Messi, Ronaldo, or Mbappe are the future season ticket holders and players of the game. If you cut off their primary source of connection, clubs will hugely impact their future fanbases.

Passionate Debate vs Stopping Hate

Jude Mercer: How does Striver strike the right balance between passionate football debate and preventing toxicity?

Tim Chase: Moderation. If we built a football platform with zero negativity, we’d have to pack up and go home today! Football is about passion, debate, and disagreeing.

On Striver, you can be frustrated and have heated debates, but we draw a hard line at top-level hate, racism, and harassment. The legacy platforms claim it's impossible to moderate content at scale, but we are actively proving that it can be done.

Jude Mercer: How is Striver preparing technically for these upcoming age restriction laws?

Tim Chase: We use third-party facial scanning technology that verifies a user's age within six months. That allows us to turn features on or off safely depending on age.

For example, an under-13 user might be able to participate in a private squad with their actual grassroots team or friends, but they won't be exposed to public doom-scrolling or global feeds.

It’s about working with young people and guiding them safely, rather than running a dictatorship and telling them they can't participate at all.