🔗 Share this article

The Australian decisive policy to restrict social platforms access for those under 16 is sending ripples worldwide. Lawmakers, campaigners, and guardians are observing with great interest to see if this approach will inspire imitation for countries abroad.

European Trend

Throughout Europe, a growing number of countries are exploring similar restrictions.

• Denmark plans a ban on social media for under-15s, with the leader stating that mobile devices and networks are "taking away our youngsters' youth". The policy is expected to be enacted in the coming year.
• Norway is preparing to implement a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to shield children from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• The Irish government is introducing a online verification tool to authenticate the user details of social media participants. Officials have suggested that an Australia-style ban is "one of the tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the leader has asked lawmakers to enact a proposal increasing the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has recommended a comparable move, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The authorities in the Netherlands has advised parents to block their youngsters from social media until 15.

Across the European Union, the European parliament has passed a non-binding resolution demanding a ban for minors unless a parent decides otherwise is provided. Even though it cautions of the "habit-forming" nature of these platforms, the resolution does not establish binding law.

"An effective age restriction is a good first step," commented the MEP behind the measure.

Britain: A Cautious Stance

Across Britain, the leadership has remained open to a potential ban, stating that "nothing is off the table" but stressing any policy must be "based on robust data".

Previously, support grew behind a proposal to introduce restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end watered down. However, the administration committed to further research the issue.

Advocacy groups have voiced concerns. One foundation founded by the relatives of a teenager who took her own life after viewing harmful social media material contends that a simple age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could create a "sudden drop-off" of risk when young people reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the refusal of the social media companies to design tools that are secure and fit for young users," said a prominent child protection advocate.

The US: A State-by-State Picture

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

• Utah demands adult approval for minors to use social media and controls overnight use.
• The state of Florida has passed a bill barring under-14s from accessing social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has enacted a rule limiting minors to 60 minutes of social media time per day, with additional time dependent on adult consent.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have likewise enacted laws demanding guardian approval for under-16s to set up social media presences.

Even with bipartisan support and suggestions from some individuals to mimic the Australian path, a nationwide ban is right now seen as improbable.

Worldwide Outlook

Beyond these regions, other states are also considering moves.

• Malaysia plans to restrict social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• Brazil has raised the minimum age for Instagram to 16.

However, international bodies strike a more nuanced stance. Unicef has cautioned that social media bans have downsides and "could prove counterproductive". The body highlights that social networks can be a "vital connection" for marginalized children and that government action should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to prioritize child safeguards.

As this global debate unfolds, the steps of this nation and its followers indicate that policymakers internationally are less and less content to wait for platforms to act voluntarily.