Nine in 10 parents in the UK support an under-16 social media ban, but the feeling among the children it would affect is more mixed. Or at least it is for a group of 10 preteens and teenagers who talked to the Guardian at a location in west London this week.

The 12- to 16-year-olds were well versed in the debate, with a set of views ranging from mandatory time limits to tougher controls and a full ban for under-16s. All those options have been under consideration in a government consultation on children’s online safety that is due to deliver an outcome next week, with an under-16 age limit expected for “high-risk” platforms, and restrictions on features such as livestreaming for others.

Precisa, 13, is on TikTok and Instagram, but not for the usual reasons: she runs a roll-on deodorant business in her spare time and uses those platforms for marketing. Snapchat is her main app for personal use – largely messaging.

“It will definitely be much, much harder to [run the business] without those apps to help me,” she says. Precisa is also deputy youth mayor of the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, and says social media plays an important role in publicising the youth council’s work.

Precisa thinks a blanket ban is not the answer anyway. Instead, she believes there should be tougher monitoring of harmful content and limits on screen time.

The consultation isn’t just weighing up a ban. It is also looking at curbing various app features, such as autoplaying video and infinite scrolling, as well as introducing other restrictions such as screen time limits.

“I think it would be much better if it was controlled more or monitored, because there’s a lot of people posting very inappropriate things, even on TikTok,” Precisa says.

Zoe, 14, does not use social media much apart from Snapchat, and her parents proscribe access to any other platforms apart from WhatsApp. When she is 15 she will be allowed to access more apps. Zoe says she does not support a ban because she feels parental controls are sufficient, but says when she starts using social media more fully she would want to feel safe.

She does not like the idea of personalised algorithms sending specifically tailored content. “That does feel like an invasion of privacy,” she says. The consultation is considering age restrictions on personalised algorithms.

Four of the 12-year-olds in the group have one unifying theme that may resonate with parents of preteens: they watch YouTube. Although the site carries an age limit of 13, like all big social platforms, it allows children to watch with a parent-supervised YouTube account, which comes with age-appropriate content.

None of the children who mention YouTube Kids, the version of the site for under-12s, seem to be fans of it. “It’s just random cartoons, clips and stuff,” says one.

Sophia, 12, says she likes YouTube because she can listen to music on it and look at art videos. If it is blocked for under-16s, as it is in Australia along with TikTok, Instagram and others, Sophia says she would “miss a lot of things”.

“I don’t go on it too often but I really enjoy it,” she says.

Milei, 12, says: “I wouldn’t be too glad about it [a ban on YouTube].” Milei would prefer if the government was “not too drastic” in its measures.

Accurisa, also 12, loves watching football influencers on YouTube and supports banning the watching of “unsafe” material. And if she has to wait until she is 16 to go on apps such as TikTok, she says she would “definitely” try to sign up for social media platforms at that age, because “I would have more friends that are older”.

Kit, 12, watches tennis highlights online with his brother on YouTube but is in favour of a full Australia-style ban. “I think it’s addictive and it can damage friendship and mental health,” he says.

Like his 14-year-old brother Xander, Kit does not have a smartphone. Xander is against a ban because he believes “there are positives [to social media] like educational purposes”, but says there should be a greater onus on parents to manage children’s social media use.

He adds that a “sudden” crackdown would probably be rejected by his peers and children would try to get around a ban, as has been the case in Australia.

Blair, 12, who joins the group remotely, says children should be allowed to use “most of the [social media] apps but not all of them because a few are super-dangerous”.

The government has been considering a ban on “harmful” apps for under-16s while allowing platforms deemed safe to remain available, albeit with restrictions on certain features, such as chatting to strangers.

One of the concerns about banning apps for under-16s is that they might face a “cliff edge” of unsafe content, on platforms that have not had a safety-first overhaul, when they join the social media world.

Lekso, 16, a user of Snapchat and Instagram, thinks strict time limits would be a good start. He is not in favour of a ban, saying social media are useful for communication and not just watching content.

Time limits are also supported by Andrew, 13, who says social media access should be banned on weekdays because “you have a lot of homework to do”, and children should only be allowed one hour at the weekend.

“I try to limit myself [on using social media] because I know it can distract,” he says, adding that you can get “sucked in”.

Nino Dvalidze, a parent who helped to organise the group, says a ban would make children fearful of technology. The founder of Young Minds App, which aims to create a safer online experience for children, she says the goal “shouldn’t be to make children fearful of technology, but to help them use it safely and responsibly”.

But, as a child in the group says, their online future will be shaped by adults. “It’s easier to say ‘this will affect you now’ when it doesn’t affect them,” says one.