🔗 Share this article

Australia's decisive policy to prohibit social platforms access for those under 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Officials, campaigners, and parents are observing closely to see if this approach will inspire imitation for countries abroad.

The European Momentum

Across Europe, a growing group of nations are moving toward comparable restrictions.

• Denmark has announced a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the PM stating that mobile devices and apps are "stealing our kids' youth". Legislation is expected to be enacted next year.
• Norway is planning to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to safeguard the young from the "manipulative force of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is introducing a digital ID system to confirm the age and identity of social media account holders. Authorities have indicated that an Australian-model ban is "an tools under consideration".
• In The Spanish government, the prime minister has urged the legislature to approve a law lifting the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In The French government, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has suggested a comparable move, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The government in the Netherlands has recommended families to block their kids from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has approved a symbolic motion calling for a ban for minors unless a parent decides otherwise is given. Even though it highlights of the "compulsive" quality of these platforms, the move does not enact enforceable legislation.

"An effective age restriction is a solid foundation," said one MEP supporting the measure.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Stance

Across Britain, the leadership has kept open a possible ban, emphasizing that "no option is discarded" but maintaining any action must be "based on strong research".

Last year, support built behind a proposal to introduce controls on social media use by minors, but it was eventually watered down. Instead, the government vowed to conduct more studies the topic.

Campaign organizations have voiced concerns. A prominent charity established by the family of a girl who died after being exposed to dangerous social media material argues that a strict age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when users reach the legal age.

"This ban is a response to the refusal of the Silicon Valley to design products and services that are secure and suitable for children," stated a leading online safety campaigner.

The United States: A Fragmented Picture

In the United States, action is mostly unfolding at the regional level against a backdrop of national inaction.

• The state of Utah mandates guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and limits late-night use.
• The state of Florida has signed a measure barring children under fourteen from accessing social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
• The state of Virginia has approved a regulation restricting under-16s to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with additional time dependent on a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also introduced measures mandating parental consent for under-16s to create social media presences.

Even with cross-party agreement and proposals from some figures to follow this example, a nationwide ban is currently seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Outlook

Outside of the West, additional countries are similarly considering moves.

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

But, international organizations take a more nuanced position. Unicef has advised that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "might have unintended consequences". The agency notes that social networks can be a "lifeline" for marginalized young people and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to improve user protection.

As this international debate unfolds, the actions of Australia and its followers indicate that governments internationally are less and less prepared to stand by for platforms to make changes on their own.