🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial move to prohibit social platforms access for those under 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Officials, child protection groups, and parents are monitoring closely to see if this strategy will set a precedent for other nations.

Across Europe Movement

Across Europe, a growing number of countries are exploring comparable bans.

• Denmark has stated a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister declaring that smartphones and networks are "taking away our children's youth". A law could be passed next year.
• Norway is planning to implement a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to safeguard young people from the "power of the recommendation systems".
• The Irish government is working on a digital wallet to authenticate the user details of social media participants. The media minister have suggested that an Australian-model ban could be "a potential options under consideration".
• In Spain, the prime minister has called on parliament to enact a proposal lifting the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has suggested a related move, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The government in the Netherlands has advised parents to block their youngsters from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the European parliament has passed a non-binding statement calling for a ban for minors except if guardian approval is given. While it warns of the "compulsive" nature of these services, the step does not create binding law.

"An effective age barrier is a good foundation," commented a leading MEP driving the resolution.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Approach

For the United Kingdom, the government has kept open a possible ban, stating that "no measure is discarded" but maintaining any policy must be "supported by strong research".

Previously, interest gathered behind a legislative effort to introduce restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was in the end modified. However, the government vowed to further research the topic.

Advocacy groups have voiced apprehensions. One foundation founded by the relatives of a young person who died after viewing dangerous platform posts argues that a blanket age ban may not make platforms safer and could lead to a "cliff edge" of exposure when young people become eligible.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the refusal of the tech sector to design platforms and apps that are appropriate and fit for minors," stated a leading peer.

The United States: A Fragmented Picture

In the United States, action is primarily unfolding at the local government level amid country-wide gridlock.

• Utah demands guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and restricts nighttime use.
• Florida has passed a measure barring those below 14 from joining social media, though it is subject to court battles.
• The state of Virginia has passed a law capping minors to a single hour of social media access per day, with extra access dependent on a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have also enacted laws mandating guardian approval for under-16s to create social media profiles.

Despite widespread concern and calls from various politicians to follow Australia's path, a US-wide ban is right now seen as improbable.

International Outlook

Apart from these regions, other nations are likewise exploring options.

• The Malaysian government plans to ban social media for under-16s beginning next year.
• Brazil has raised the required age for Instagram to 16.

However, international organizations strike a more nuanced tone. Unicef has advised that social media bans pose dangers and "may even backfire". The body highlights that the internet can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable young people and that government action should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to prioritize child safeguards.

As this global discussion unfolds, the steps of Australia and others show that states internationally are no longer content to delay for platforms to act voluntarily.