🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive move to prohibit social platforms access for individuals under sixteen is sparking debate around the globe. Officials, child protection groups, and parents are observing closely to see if this tactic will set a precedent for the rest of the world.

The European Trend

Across Europe, a rising group of nations are considering parallel bans.

• Denmark plans a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister stating that mobile devices and networks are "taking away our kids' youth". A law is expected to be enacted soon.
• Norway is set to enforce a age restriction of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard young people from the "influence of the algorithms".
• Ireland is developing a digital wallet to verify the user details of social media participants. The media minister have suggested that an Australian-model ban remains "one of the tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the leader has urged parliament to enact a proposal lifting the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a related step, including an overnight "internet blackout" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Dutch government has urged parents to restrict their kids from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has adopted a non-binding statement calling for a ban for under-16s without parental consent is given. Although it cautions of the "habit-forming" design of these platforms, the resolution does not create binding law.

"A clear age limit is a good foundation," commented one MEP behind the measure.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Stance

For the United Kingdom, the government has remained open to a possible ban, stating that "no measure is being dismissed" but stressing any decision must be "supported by conclusive data".

Last year, interest built behind a legislative effort to enact restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was in the end modified. However, the government pledged to conduct more studies the topic.

Advocacy groups have voiced concerns. An organization set up by the relatives of a young person who died after encountering disturbing online content suggests that a strict age ban may not improve online safety and could create a "cliff edge" of risk when users reach the legal age.

"The Australian ban is a response to the failure of the social media companies to create platforms and apps that are secure and fit for young users," stated a influential child protection advocate.

America: A Decentralized Approach

Across America, action is mostly unfolding at the local level against a backdrop of national gridlock.

• Utah mandates guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and limits late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a law barring under-14s from joining social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has passed a rule capping under-16s to one hour of social media time per day, with extra time needing parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also passed measures demanding adult authorization for minors to set up social media profiles.

Despite cross-party agreement and calls from certain individuals to mimic this example, a federal ban is currently seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Outlook

Outside of Europe and the US, further nations are likewise taking action.

• The Malaysian government intends to restrict social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• Brazil has lifted the required age for one major platform to 16.

Yet, world organizations take a more cautious tone. The UN children's agency has cautioned that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "might have unintended consequences". The body highlights that the internet can be a "critical link" for marginalized youth and that bans should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to prioritize safety.

Even as this international conversation evolves, the steps of the Australian government and several other countries demonstrate that governments globally are no longer prepared to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.