🔗 Share this article

Australia's decisive move to restrict social networking access for young people below 16 is sparking debate internationally. Officials, campaigners, and guardians are monitoring intently to see if this tactic will inspire imitation for the rest of the world.

Across Europe Momentum

Across Europe, a rising group of states are exploring similar bans.

• The Danish government has announced a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader stating that mobile devices and platforms are "stealing our children's innocence". Legislation may be enacted next year.
• Norway is preparing to introduce a age restriction of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard young people from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is developing a online verification tool to verify the user details of social media account holders. Officials have indicated that an Australian-model ban could be "one of the measures on the table".
• In Spain, the president has called on lawmakers to enact a law lifting the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In The French government, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has suggested a similar action, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The administration in The Dutch government has advised guardians to block their children from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the European parliament has adopted a advisory resolution calling for a ban for under-16s unless parental consent is provided. Although it highlights of the "habit-forming" nature of these platforms, the step does not enact binding law.

"A clear age limit is a solid foundation," said a leading MEP supporting the initiative.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Stance

For the United Kingdom, the leadership has not ruled out a future ban, emphasizing that "no measure is off the table" but stressing any action must be "based on conclusive research".

Last year, interest gathered behind a bill to introduce controls on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually modified. Instead, the administration vowed to investigate the topic.

Charities have raised concerns. An organization set up by the loved ones of a girl who was lost after being exposed to disturbing online content argues that a blanket age ban may not improve online safety and could lead to a "cliff edge" of exposure when young people turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the failure of the social media companies to create tools that are safe and age appropriate for young users," said a prominent child protection advocate.

The United States: A State-by-State Approach

Stateside, legislation is primarily unfolding at the regional level due to federal gridlock.

• Utah demands guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and restricts overnight use.
• Florida has passed a bill barring under-14s from creating accounts on social media, though it is subject to court battles.
• Virginia has passed a law capping under-16s to one hour of social media time per day, with extra time requiring a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly introduced measures demanding guardian approval for minors to set up social media accounts.

Despite cross-party agreement and suggestions from some politicians to copy the Australian example, a US-wide ban is presently seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Perspectives

Outside of the West, additional states are also considering moves.

• The Malaysian government plans to prohibit social media for those under sixteen starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has increased the minimum age for Instagram to 16.

Yet, world agencies take a more cautious tone. The UN children's agency has advised that age-based restrictions have downsides and "might have unintended consequences". The body highlights that social networks can be a "lifeline" for isolated youth and that government action should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to invest in child safeguards.

Even as this global discussion unfolds, the actions of the Australian government and its followers demonstrate that governments internationally are increasingly content to delay for platforms to make changes on their own.