🔗 Share this article

The Australian bold policy to restrict social networking access for those under 16 is sending ripples around the globe. Politicians, child protection groups, and families are watching closely to see if this tactic will become a template for other nations.

The European Momentum

Throughout Europe, a rising group of states are considering similar bans.

• The Danish government has announced a restriction on social media for youth below 15, with the leader arguing that smartphones and platforms are "robbing our children's childhood". The policy may be enacted in the coming year.
• Norway is planning to enforce a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard the young from the "power of the AI".
• Ireland is working on a digital ID system to confirm the user details of social media participants. The media minister have indicated that an Australia-style ban remains "an tools on the table".
• In Spain, the president has urged lawmakers to approve a proposal increasing the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In The French government, the president has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a legislative committee has endorsed a related step, potentially involving an overnight "internet blackout" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The government in The Dutch government has advised guardians to prevent their children from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has approved a non-binding resolution demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 without parental consent is provided. While it warns of the "compulsive" nature of these platforms, the resolution does not create enforceable legislation.

"A strong age restriction is a good starting point," commented one parliamentarian behind the resolution.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Approach

For the United Kingdom, the administration has remained open to a future ban, arguing that "no option is being dismissed" but stressing any policy must be "supported by strong data".

Earlier, interest gathered behind a bill to impose limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was ultimately modified. Nonetheless, the government pledged to conduct more studies the topic.

Charities have voiced apprehensions. A prominent charity set up by the loved ones of a teenager who died after encountering dangerous platform posts argues that a strict age ban may not protect children and could create a "dangerous transition" of exposure when users turn 16.

"This ban is a response to the failure of the Silicon Valley to create platforms and apps that are safe and age appropriate for minors," commented a influential peer.

The United States: A Fragmented Approach

In the United States, legislation is primarily happening at the local government level amid federal gridlock.

• Utah requires adult approval for minors to use social media and restricts overnight use.
• Florida has passed a bill prohibiting children under fourteen from accessing social media, though it faces court battles.
• Virginia has approved a rule restricting teenagers to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with any further access needing a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have similarly introduced bills demanding adult authorization for minors to set up social media presences.

Despite bipartisan support and suggestions from some politicians to follow Australia's example, a US-wide ban is presently seen as a distant prospect.

Global Outlook

Outside of the West, other countries are similarly taking action.

• Malaysia aims to ban social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• Brazil has lifted the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

But, global bodies strike a more nuanced tone. The UN children's agency has warned that age-based restrictions have downsides and "may even backfire". The body notes that online platforms can be a "critical link" for isolated children and that government action should not be a "excuse" for social media firms to invest in safety.

As this worldwide debate continues, the policies of this nation and its followers show that states around the world are no longer content to stand by for platforms to make changes on their own.