🔗 Share this article

Australia's controversial policy to prohibit social media access for young people below 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Officials, safety advocates, and guardians are monitoring with great interest to see if this approach will inspire imitation for other nations.

European Movement

Across Europe, a growing chorus of countries are exploring comparable restrictions.

• Denmark plans a ban on social media for under-15s, with the prime minister arguing that mobile devices and networks are "taking away our children's innocence". Legislation is expected to be passed soon.
• The Norwegian government is planning to introduce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to safeguard children from the "power of the algorithms".
• Ireland is introducing a digital ID system to authenticate the age and identity of social media participants. Officials have indicated that an similar ban remains "an options in reserve".
• In Spain, the president has asked lawmakers to pass a law raising the access age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a comparable action, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The administration in The Netherlands has recommended parents to restrict their children from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the bloc's legislature has passed a non-binding motion demanding a ban for under-16s without guardian approval is provided. Although it warns of the "compulsive" nature of these platforms, the step does not enact mandatory rules.

"An effective age barrier is a solid first step," said a leading parliamentarian driving the initiative.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Approach

Across Britain, the leadership has kept open a potential ban, arguing that "no measure is discarded" but maintaining any policy must be "supported by conclusive data".

Last year, momentum grew behind a bill to introduce limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately modified. Nonetheless, the government pledged to further research the issue.

Campaign organizations have expressed warnings. One foundation set up by the loved ones of a young person who took her own life after encountering disturbing platform posts argues that a blanket age ban could fail to protect children and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of harm when teens reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the inability of the tech sector to design tools that are safe and fit for children," stated a influential child protection advocate.

The United States: A Decentralized Picture

Across America, legislation is mostly occurring at the state level due to federal gridlock.

• The state of Utah requires parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• Florida has passed a measure barring under-14s from joining social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
• Virginia has approved a law limiting teenagers to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with any further time needing adult consent.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly enacted bills mandating adult authorization for minors to set up social media accounts.

Despite cross-party agreement and proposals from various individuals to mimic this example, a US-wide ban is right now seen as improbable.

Worldwide Outlook

Outside of the West, further nations are also exploring options.

• Malaysia intends to prohibit social media for under-16s beginning next year.
• Brazil has increased the access age for one major platform to 16.

Yet, world bodies take a more nuanced stance. A major UN agency has cautioned that age-based restrictions have downsides and "might prove counterproductive". The agency points out that online platforms can be a "critical link" for marginalized children and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to improve user protection.

While this worldwide debate unfolds, the actions of the Australian government and others indicate that states internationally are no longer content to delay for platforms to make changes on their own.