🔗 Share this article

Australia's controversial move to prohibit social platforms access for those under 16 is sparking debate internationally. Officials, campaigners, and families are observing with great interest to see if this strategy will set a precedent for other nations.

European Trend

Across Europe, a growing group of nations are exploring parallel bans.

• Denmark has announced a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the PM declaring that smartphones and networks are "stealing our youngsters' childhood". A law could be enacted next year.
• Norway is preparing to introduce a age restriction of 15, pointing to the need to protect young people from the "influence of the algorithms".
• Ireland is working on a digital wallet to authenticate the identity and age of social media users. Officials have indicated that an Australian-model ban is "an measures under consideration".
• In The Spanish government, the president has asked lawmakers to pass a law increasing the minimum age for accessing social media to 16.
• In The French government, the president has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has suggested a related action, including an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The administration in The Netherlands has recommended families to prevent their kids from social media until 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has passed a non-binding motion supporting a ban for under-16s without guardian approval is provided. While it highlights of the "addictive" nature of these services, the step does not establish mandatory rules.

"A strong age limit is a solid foundation," said one parliamentarian supporting the measure.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Approach

In the UK, the government has remained open to a potential ban, arguing that "no option is being dismissed" but insisting any policy must be "based on strong research".

Earlier, interest gathered behind a bill to introduce limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end modified. Instead, the government vowed to investigate the matter.

Charities have voiced warnings. An organization founded by the loved ones of a teenager who was lost after being exposed to harmful platform posts argues that a strict age ban might not protect children and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when users become eligible.

"Australia's ban is a response to the refusal of the social media companies to build tools that are secure and suitable for young users," commented a influential online safety campaigner.

America: A State-by-State Landscape

In the United States, legislation is primarily occurring at the local level against a backdrop of national stalemate.

• Utah demands adult approval for those under 18 to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has passed a bill prohibiting those below 14 from creating accounts on social media, though it is subject to court battles.
• Virginia has passed a regulation capping minors to one hour of social media access per day, with additional time requiring adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also introduced measures mandating parental consent for minors to open social media profiles.

Despite cross-party agreement and calls from various figures to follow this example, a US-wide ban is right now seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Outlook

Beyond these regions, additional nations are likewise exploring options.

• Malaysia intends to restrict social media for teenagers starting from next year.
• Brazil has increased the minimum age for the platform Instagram to 16.

However, global bodies strike a more nuanced position. Unicef has cautioned that age-based restrictions pose dangers and "could have unintended consequences". The agency points out that social networks can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable youth and that government action should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to improve safety.

While this international discussion evolves, the actions of the Australian government and its followers show that policymakers internationally are no longer prepared to wait for platforms to act voluntarily.