🔗 Share this article

The Australian decisive policy to restrict social platforms access for those under 16 is sparking debate internationally. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and families are watching with great interest to see if this approach will set a precedent for countries abroad.

The European Momentum

In Europe, a increasing group of nations are considering similar restrictions.

• The Danish government plans a prohibition on social media for under-15s, with the prime minister stating that phones and networks are "robbing our youngsters' innocence". A law may be enacted next year.
• Norway is planning to implement a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to protect the young from the "power of the AI".
• The Irish government is introducing a online verification tool to authenticate the identity and age of social media participants. The media minister have indicated that an Australian-model ban could be "one of the tools under consideration".
• In Spain, the leader has urged lawmakers to pass a bill increasing the minimum age for using social media to 16.
• In The French government, the president has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a comparable move, potentially involving an overnight "internet blackout" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Dutch government has urged families to block their children from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the bloc's legislature has passed a non-binding statement calling for a ban for teenagers under 16 without a parent decides otherwise is provided. While it warns of the "addictive" quality of these services, the move does not enact enforceable legislation.

"An effective age barrier is a solid first step," stated one MEP supporting the resolution.

The United Kingdom: A Watchful Stance

Across Britain, the leadership has remained open to a future ban, stating that "no measure is discarded" but stressing any action must be "supported by strong evidence".

Earlier, momentum gathered behind a proposal to impose controls on social media use by minors, but it was in the end modified. Nonetheless, the administration vowed to conduct more studies the topic.

Advocacy groups have expressed apprehensions. An organization set up by the loved ones of a teenager who died after encountering dangerous social media material argues that a simple age ban could fail to improve online safety and could result in a "cliff edge" of risk when users become eligible.

"This ban is a reaction to the failure of the social media companies to create platforms and apps that are safe and fit for young users," said a prominent child protection advocate.

The US: A Fragmented Approach

Across America, action is largely occurring at the state government level amid federal inaction.

• Utah mandates parental consent for minors to use social media and limits late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a bill banning those below 14 from creating accounts on social media, though it is entangled in court battles.
• Virginia has passed a rule limiting minors to 60 minutes of social media access per day, with additional time requiring adult consent.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise enacted measures requiring guardian approval for teenagers to create social media accounts.

Despite widespread concern and calls from some politicians to copy this example, a nationwide ban is presently seen as improbable.

International Perspectives

Beyond Europe and the US, further nations are similarly considering moves.

• The Malaysian government plans to restrict social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• Brazil has increased the access age for Instagram to 16.

Yet, international bodies take a more nuanced position. The UN children's agency has warned that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "may even have unintended consequences". The organization highlights that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for isolated youth and that regulation should not be a "substitute" for social media firms to invest in user protection.

As this global conversation unfolds, the steps of Australia and several other countries indicate that policymakers around the world are no longer willing to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.