🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold policy to prohibit social media access for those under 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Officials, safety advocates, and families are watching intently to see if this approach will become a template for other nations.

The European Momentum

Throughout Europe, a increasing chorus of states are exploring parallel restrictions.

• Denmark has announced a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister stating that mobile devices and networks are "taking away our children's innocence". The policy could be formalized next year.
• The Norwegian government is preparing to implement a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to protect young people from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• The Irish government is introducing a digital wallet to authenticate the identity and age of social media participants. The media minister have stated that an similar ban remains "a potential tools under consideration".
• In Spain, the prime minister has called on parliament to approve a law increasing the legal age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has recommended a comparable move, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The government in The Netherlands has advised guardians to restrict their youngsters from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has passed a advisory motion supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 except if guardian approval is granted. Even though it warns of the "compulsive" design of these platforms, the resolution does not establish binding law.

"A strong age barrier is a useful foundation," said a leading European lawmaker supporting the resolution.

Britain: A Watchful Approach

For the United Kingdom, the leadership has remained open to a future ban, stating that "no option is discarded" but maintaining any policy must be "supported by robust evidence".

Last year, support grew behind a bill to enact restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately weakened. Instead, the administration vowed to conduct more studies the issue.

Campaign organizations have voiced apprehensions. A prominent charity set up by the relatives of a teenager who died after viewing harmful social media material argues that a strict age ban might not improve online safety and could create a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when teens become eligible.

"The Australian ban is a response to the refusal of the tech sector to design platforms and apps that are safe and suitable for young users," commented a influential child protection advocate.

The US: A State-by-State Approach

Stateside, legislation is largely occurring at the regional level against a backdrop of federal stalemate.

• The state of Utah requires guardian permission for minors to use social media and restricts overnight use.
• Florida has passed a bill barring those below 14 from accessing social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has enacted a rule limiting teenagers to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with additional use requiring parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise introduced bills requiring parental consent for under-16s to open social media presences.

Despite bipartisan support and proposals from some individuals to copy the Australian example, a federal ban is currently seen as improbable.

Global Outlook

Beyond the West, other countries are similarly considering moves.

• Malaysia aims to ban social media for those under sixteen beginning next year.
• Brazil has lifted the access age for one major platform to 16.

But, global agencies strike a more cautious tone. Unicef has cautioned that age-based restrictions pose dangers and "might backfire". The organization highlights that social networks can be a "critical link" for vulnerable young people and that bans should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to invest in child safeguards.

Even as this global discussion unfolds, the steps of Australia and others demonstrate that states globally are increasingly content to delay for platforms to act voluntarily.