🔗 Share this article

The Australian bold policy to restrict social platforms access for young people below 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and families are watching closely to see if this approach will set a precedent for countries abroad.

European Momentum

In Europe, a rising group of states are exploring parallel bans.

• The Danish government has announced a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader arguing that phones and apps are "taking away our youngsters' innocence". A law may be passed in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is planning to introduce a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard young people from the "power of the AI".
• Ireland is developing a digital wallet to confirm the identity and age of social media account holders. Authorities have indicated that an Australia-style ban remains "a potential tools under consideration".
• In Spain, the leader has asked the legislature to approve a law increasing the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In The French government, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a related move, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in The Dutch government has recommended guardians to restrict their youngsters from social media until 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has adopted a non-binding statement calling for a ban for under-16s unless a parent decides otherwise is given. Even though it highlights of the "habit-forming" design of these platforms, the step does not establish enforceable legislation.

"A clear age barrier is a useful starting point," said the European lawmaker driving the resolution.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Approach

Across Britain, the administration has kept open a possible ban, emphasizing that "no measure is being dismissed" but stressing any decision must be "based on conclusive research".

Earlier, interest gathered behind a bill to enact restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately watered down. However, the administration vowed to further research the matter.

Advocacy groups have raised warnings. One foundation founded by the relatives of a young person who took her own life after encountering disturbing social media material argues that a blanket age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could create a "dangerous transition" of harm when young people turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a reaction to the refusal of the Silicon Valley to design products and services that are appropriate and fit for minors," commented a influential child protection advocate.

The US: A Decentralized Picture

Stateside, action is mostly unfolding at the local level against a backdrop of federal stalemate.

• The state of Utah requires parental consent for under-18s to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a law prohibiting children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it faces legal challenges.
• The state of Virginia has passed a regulation limiting minors to a single hour of social media access per day, with extra use requiring parental permission.
• The state of Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise passed bills requiring guardian approval for minors to set up social media presences.

Even with widespread concern and calls from various figures to follow Australia's lead, a US-wide ban is currently seen as improbable.

International Views

Beyond these regions, additional states are also considering moves.

• Malaysia plans to ban social media for under-16s effective next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has increased the minimum age for one major platform to 16.

But, global bodies take a more nuanced tone. The UN children's agency has advised that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "could have unintended consequences". The organization points out that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable young people and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to prioritize user protection.

As this worldwide conversation evolves, the steps of this nation and several other countries demonstrate that states internationally are no longer willing to stand by for platforms to make changes on their own.