🔗 Share this article

The Australian bold action to prohibit social platforms access for young people below 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Officials, safety advocates, and parents are monitoring with great interest to see if this tactic will inspire imitation for the rest of the world.

European Momentum

In Europe, a rising number of states are exploring similar bans.

• Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader stating that smartphones and apps are "taking away our youngsters' youth". Legislation could be formalized in the coming year.
• Norway is set to introduce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to safeguard young people from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is working on a online verification tool to confirm the user details of social media users. The media minister have stated that an similar ban is "an measures in reserve".
• In The Spanish government, the leader has called on parliament to pass a bill lifting the minimum age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the president has floated the idea of a ban for those under fifteen, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a similar move, including an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The authorities in The Dutch government has advised parents to prevent their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has passed a symbolic resolution calling for a ban for minors unless parental consent is granted. While it cautions of the "addictive" nature of these platforms, the move does not establish enforceable legislation.

"An effective age limit is a good starting point," said one MEP supporting the initiative.

The UK: A Watchful Stance

In the UK, the leadership has kept open a potential ban, emphasizing that "no option is off the table" but maintaining any policy must be "based on robust data".

Previously, support built behind a legislative effort to enact restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately watered down. Instead, the administration pledged to further research the matter.

Charities have raised apprehensions. One foundation set up by the relatives of a teenager who was lost after viewing dangerous online content suggests that a blanket age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could result in a "cliff edge" of exposure when users reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the refusal of the social media companies to design tools that are appropriate and age appropriate for minors," said a influential peer.

The US: A State-by-State Landscape

Stateside, action is mostly happening at the regional level against a backdrop of country-wide gridlock.

• Utah requires parental consent for under-18s to use social media and limits late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a law banning under-14s from creating accounts on social media, though it is subject to constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has approved a regulation capping teenagers to 60 minutes of social media access per day, with extra time needing parental permission.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also enacted laws demanding parental consent for under-16s to create social media presences.

Despite widespread concern and suggestions from certain politicians to copy Australia's lead, a federal ban is presently seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Views

Apart from these regions, additional states are likewise considering moves.

• Malaysia aims to prohibit social media for those under sixteen starting from next year.
• Brazil has increased the minimum age for the platform Instagram to 16.

But, global agencies adopt a more measured position. A major UN agency has advised that age-based restrictions carry risks and "may even prove counterproductive". The body points out that the internet can be a "lifeline" for isolated children and that government action should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to invest in safety.

Even as this international debate continues, the policies of the Australian government and its followers show that states internationally are increasingly willing to delay for platforms to act voluntarily.