🔗 Share this article

Australia's decisive move to ban social platforms access for those under 16 is creating waves worldwide. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and families are observing intently to see if this tactic will become a template for the rest of the world.

European Trend

Across Europe, a increasing chorus of nations are exploring comparable restrictions.

• Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader declaring that mobile devices and apps are "taking away our children's childhood". A law may be enacted next year.
• The Norwegian government is planning to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, pointing to the need to shield young people from the "influence of the AI".
• Ireland is working on a digital ID system to authenticate the user details of social media account holders. Officials have stated that an similar ban is "one of the tools on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the president has called on the legislature to enact a bill raising the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the president has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has recommended a comparable move, including an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The administration in The Dutch government has urged parents to block their children from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has approved a symbolic statement demanding a ban for under-16s without a parent decides otherwise is provided. Even though it cautions of the "addictive" quality of these platforms, the move does not create enforceable legislation.

"An effective age barrier is a good foundation," said one European lawmaker behind the resolution.

The United Kingdom: A Watchful Approach

In the UK, the administration has not ruled out a future ban, arguing that "nothing is discarded" but insisting any action must be "grounded in conclusive evidence".

Earlier, momentum built behind a proposal to impose controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end watered down. Instead, the administration vowed to conduct more studies the issue.

Charities have expressed warnings. A prominent charity founded by the relatives of a young person who was lost after being exposed to harmful online content suggests that a strict age ban might not protect children and could result in a "sudden drop-off" of harm when teens turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a answer to the failure of the social media companies to design tools that are safe and suitable for children," stated a prominent child protection advocate.

America: A Fragmented Approach

Stateside, action is largely unfolding at the local level due to federal stalemate.

• Utah requires parental consent for under-18s to use social media and controls late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a law prohibiting under-14s from accessing social media, though it is entangled in court battles.
• Virginia has passed a law restricting minors to one hour of social media time per day, with additional access requiring parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also enacted measures requiring adult authorization for minors to open social media accounts.

Despite bipartisan support and calls from certain politicians to mimic this path, a US-wide ban is presently seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Views

Apart from the West, other states are also taking action.

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

Yet, international organizations adopt a more measured tone. The UN children's agency has warned that age-based restrictions have downsides and "might prove counterproductive". The agency points out that the internet can be a "critical link" for marginalized young people and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for platform operators to improve child safeguards.

Even as this global debate continues, the policies of the Australian government and others indicate that policymakers around the world are increasingly willing to delay for tech companies to make changes on their own.