🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold policy to restrict social platforms access for young people below 16 is sending ripples worldwide. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and guardians are observing intently to see if this strategy will become a template for the rest of the world.

Across Europe Momentum

In Europe, a rising chorus of states are considering comparable measures.

• Denmark plans a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister stating that mobile devices and networks are "stealing our kids' youth". A law may be enacted in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is preparing to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard young people from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• The Irish government is developing a digital ID system to verify the user details of social media users. The media minister have suggested that an similar ban could be "a potential tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the prime minister has urged parliament to approve a bill raising the access age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has endorsed a comparable step, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The administration in The Dutch government has urged families to restrict their kids from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has adopted a non-binding motion demanding a ban for under-16s except if parental consent is given. While it cautions of the "habit-forming" quality of these services, the resolution does not enact enforceable legislation.

"A strong age barrier is a good foundation," stated a leading MEP supporting the measure.

The UK: A Watchful Eye

Across Britain, the leadership has kept open a possible ban, stating that "no option is off the table" but maintaining any policy must be "grounded in conclusive research".

Earlier, interest gathered behind a bill to enact restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually weakened. Instead, the government committed to further research the topic.

Advocacy groups have voiced apprehensions. One foundation established by the relatives of a young person who died after encountering disturbing social media material contends that a blanket age ban may not protect children and could lead to a "cliff edge" of risk when users reach the legal age.

"The Australian ban is a response to the failure of the tech sector to design tools that are secure and suitable for young users," stated a prominent peer.

The US: A Decentralized Picture

In the United States, regulation is mostly occurring at the state government level amid country-wide gridlock.

• Utah mandates guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and limits overnight use.
• Florida has signed a law barring those below 14 from joining social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has enacted a law restricting teenagers to one hour of social media time per day, with any further access dependent on adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also enacted laws requiring parental consent for minors to open social media presences.

Despite cross-party agreement and calls from some politicians to copy the Australian example, a nationwide ban is presently seen as unlikely.

International Outlook

Apart from the West, other states are also exploring options.

• The Malaysian government plans to ban social media for teenagers effective next year.
• Brazil has lifted the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

However, world bodies adopt a more nuanced tone. The UN children's agency has advised that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "may even prove counterproductive". The organization points out that social networks can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable young people and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to invest in safety.

Even as this international conversation continues, the policies of Australia and its followers demonstrate that policymakers internationally are no longer willing to stand by for platforms to make changes on their own.