🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial move to prohibit social media access for young people below 16 is creating waves worldwide. Officials, child protection groups, and guardians are observing with great interest to see if this strategy will become a template for other nations.

Across Europe Momentum

In Europe, a growing chorus of countries are moving toward comparable measures.

• The Danish government has stated a prohibition on social media for under-15s, with the leader stating that phones and apps are "stealing our kids' youth". Legislation is expected to be formalized soon.
• Norway is set to introduce a age restriction of 15, highlighting the need to protect young people from the "power of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to authenticate the identity and age of social media participants. Officials have indicated that an Australia-style ban could be "an options under consideration".
• In Spain, the leader has asked lawmakers to pass a proposal increasing the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a comparable step, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in The Dutch government has urged guardians to prevent their children from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has adopted a non-binding resolution calling for a ban for under-16s without parental consent is given. Even though it cautions of the "addictive" quality of these platforms, the move does not create mandatory rules.

"A clear age limit is a useful first step," commented a leading European lawmaker driving the resolution.

The UK: A Cautious Eye

In the UK, the administration has kept open a potential ban, arguing that "nothing is being dismissed" but insisting any policy must be "supported by robust evidence".

Last year, support grew behind a proposal to introduce limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually modified. Nonetheless, the government pledged to further research the matter.

Campaign organizations have voiced apprehensions. One foundation set up by the relatives of a young person who died after viewing harmful online content argues that a blanket age ban may not protect children and could create a "dangerous transition" of harm when users turn 16.

"This ban is a answer to the inability of the Silicon Valley to create tools that are appropriate and suitable for minors," commented a leading peer.

America: A Decentralized Landscape

Stateside, legislation is largely unfolding at the state level due to national stalemate.

• Utah mandates parental consent for under-18s to use social media and limits overnight use.
• Florida has passed a bill barring under-14s from creating accounts on social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
• Virginia has passed a regulation restricting minors to a single hour of social media access per day, with any further time needing a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have likewise enacted bills requiring parental consent for under-16s to set up social media accounts.

Despite bipartisan support and suggestions from various figures to mimic the Australian example, a US-wide ban is right now seen as improbable.

International Views

Apart from Europe and the US, additional nations are similarly taking action.

• Malaysia aims to ban social media for teenagers effective next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has raised the access age for Instagram to 16.

But, international bodies strike a more cautious stance. The UN children's agency has advised that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "might backfire". The organization notes that the internet can be a "lifeline" for vulnerable children and that government action should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to invest in user protection.

As this worldwide conversation continues, the steps of the Australian government and several other countries demonstrate that governments internationally are less and less prepared to stand by for platforms to make changes on their own.