🔗 Share this article

The Australian bold action to restrict social networking access for individuals under sixteen is creating waves internationally. Officials, safety advocates, and families are observing intently to see if this strategy will become a template for the rest of the world.

European Trend

In Europe, a rising number of states are moving toward similar bans.

• Denmark plans a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister arguing that phones and apps are "stealing our children's innocence". A law may be formalized next year.
• Norway is preparing to enforce a age restriction of 15, citing the need to protect children from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• The Irish government is introducing a online verification tool to verify the identity and age of social media participants. The media minister have stated that an Australia-style ban could be "a potential measures under consideration".
• In Spain, the president has asked parliament to pass a law lifting the access age for using social media to 16.
• In The French government, the president has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has recommended a similar action, including an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in The Netherlands has recommended guardians to prevent their kids from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has approved a non-binding resolution supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 except if a parent decides otherwise is provided. While it cautions of the "addictive" design of these apps, the move does not create binding law.

"A clear age limit is a good starting point," said the parliamentarian supporting the resolution.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Approach

For the United Kingdom, the administration has remained open to a future ban, stating that "no option is off the table" but maintaining any decision must be "supported by conclusive data".

Earlier, interest built behind a bill to impose restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately weakened. However, the government committed to investigate the matter.

Charities have expressed apprehensions. A prominent charity established by the family of a teenager who died after being exposed to dangerous platform posts argues that a blanket age ban might not make platforms safer and could result in a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when young people become eligible.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the refusal of the tech sector to create tools that are appropriate and suitable for young users," stated a influential online safety campaigner.

The US: A Fragmented Approach

Stateside, action is primarily happening at the regional level amid country-wide inaction.

• Utah mandates guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and controls overnight use.
• Florida has signed a bill banning those below 14 from creating accounts on social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has enacted a rule restricting under-16s to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with extra time needing parental permission.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise passed laws demanding parental consent for under-16s to open social media presences.

Even with cross-party agreement and calls from various figures to copy Australia's example, a US-wide ban is presently seen as improbable.

Worldwide Perspectives

Outside of Europe and the US, additional states are likewise considering moves.

• Malaysia intends to ban social media for under-16s effective next year.
• Brazil has lifted the minimum age for the platform Instagram to 16.

However, global agencies strike a more cautious stance. The UN children's agency has advised that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "may even backfire". The agency notes that the internet can be a "lifeline" for isolated children and that bans should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to improve user protection.

While this global debate unfolds, the policies of the Australian government and several other countries show that governments globally are increasingly willing to delay for the industry to act voluntarily.