🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold action to restrict social platforms access for young people below 16 is sending ripples around the globe. Officials, child protection groups, and guardians are watching closely to see if this approach will become a template for countries abroad.

European Movement

Throughout Europe, a growing chorus of states are exploring similar measures.

• Denmark plans a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister declaring that phones and networks are "stealing our youngsters' youth". The policy could be formalized in the coming year.
• Norway is set to enforce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to shield young people from the "power of the algorithms".
• Ireland is introducing a digital ID system to verify the identity and age of social media account holders. Authorities have suggested that an Australia-style ban could be "a potential options in reserve".
• In The Spanish government, the leader has urged parliament to pass a law increasing the minimum age for accessing social media to 16.
• In The French government, the head of state has proposed a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has suggested a comparable move, potentially involving an overnight "internet blackout" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The government in The Netherlands has advised parents to restrict their children from social media until 15.

Across the European Union, the European parliament has approved a symbolic statement demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 without guardian approval is granted. Even though it cautions of the "compulsive" quality of these services, the resolution does not enact mandatory rules.

"A clear age limit is a useful first step," said one European lawmaker driving the resolution.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Eye

Across Britain, the government has remained open to a possible ban, emphasizing that "no measure is off the table" but insisting any action must be "supported by strong research".

Last year, interest grew behind a bill to introduce limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually modified. However, the government pledged to conduct more studies the issue.

Campaign organizations have voiced apprehensions. An organization set up by the loved ones of a girl who died after viewing dangerous platform posts suggests that a blanket age ban may not make platforms safer and could result in a "cliff edge" of harm when teens turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the inability of the social media companies to create tools that are secure and fit for children," said a prominent online safety campaigner.

The US: A Decentralized Approach

Across America, legislation is primarily happening at the regional level against a backdrop of federal gridlock.

• Utah requires guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and limits late-night use.
• Florida has signed a measure barring under-14s from joining social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has passed a rule limiting minors to 60 minutes of social media time per day, with any further time needing parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also passed measures requiring parental consent for minors to create social media profiles.

Even with bipartisan support and calls from certain politicians to copy the Australian lead, a nationwide ban is right now seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Perspectives

Apart from Europe and the US, additional countries are likewise taking action.

• Malaysia aims to prohibit social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has raised the access age for the platform Instagram to 16.

Yet, world organizations strike a more nuanced stance. Unicef has advised that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "could have unintended consequences". The organization notes that social networks can be a "lifeline" for marginalized children and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to prioritize child safeguards.

As this international debate continues, the actions of this nation and several other countries demonstrate that governments internationally are less and less prepared to stand by for the industry to self-regulate.