🔗 Share this article

The Australian bold policy to restrict social networking access for young people below 16 is creating waves around the globe. Officials, campaigners, and guardians are observing closely to see if this tactic will become a template for countries abroad.

The European Momentum

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

• The Danish government plans a prohibition on social media for under-15s, with the prime minister declaring that smartphones and platforms are "taking away our children's childhood". The policy may be passed next year.
• Norway is planning to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard the young from the "influence of the algorithms".
• The Irish government is working on a online verification tool to confirm the age and identity of social media users. The media minister have suggested that an Australia-style ban could be "a potential tools under consideration".
• In Spain, the prime minister has called on the legislature to approve a law lifting the minimum age for using social media to 16.
• In The French government, the president has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a comparable action, alongside an overnight "internet blackout" for older teenagers.
• The government in The Netherlands has advised guardians to restrict their kids from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has passed a symbolic motion calling for a ban for under-16s without a parent decides otherwise is given. Although it warns of the "addictive" nature of these services, the move does not establish mandatory rules.

"A strong age restriction is a good foundation," stated the parliamentarian behind the resolution.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Approach

For the United Kingdom, the leadership has remained open to a possible ban, arguing that "nothing is being dismissed" but insisting any decision must be "based on robust research".

Earlier, support grew behind a bill to impose controls on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately modified. Instead, the government vowed to investigate the issue.

Charities have raised apprehensions. One foundation set up by the loved ones of a teenager who died after viewing disturbing platform posts argues that a strict age ban may not improve online safety and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of risk when young people turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a response to the inability of the Silicon Valley to build products and services that are appropriate and fit for children," said a prominent child protection advocate.

The US: A Decentralized Approach

Across America, action is largely happening at the local level due to federal gridlock.

• The state of Utah requires adult approval for minors to use social media and limits overnight use.
• Florida has passed a law barring under-14s from joining social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has passed a law limiting under-16s to 60 minutes of social media time per day, with extra time requiring adult consent.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise enacted laws demanding adult authorization for minors to create social media accounts.

Even with cross-party agreement and suggestions from certain figures to copy Australia's lead, a nationwide ban is right now seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Perspectives

Outside of Europe and the US, further nations are also exploring options.

• The Malaysian government aims to ban social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• Brazil has increased the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

But, global bodies adopt a more nuanced stance. The UN children's agency has warned that social media bans have downsides and "might have unintended consequences". The organization notes that the internet can be a "critical link" for isolated youth and that bans should not be a "excuse" for social media firms to improve user protection.

While this global debate unfolds, the policies of Australia and its followers show that governments globally are no longer prepared to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.