🔗 Share this article

The Australian controversial action to ban social media access for those under 16 is creating waves around the globe. Politicians, safety advocates, and parents are watching intently to see if this strategy will become a template for other nations.

Across Europe Momentum

Throughout Europe, a rising chorus of states are exploring similar bans.

• Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for youth below 15, with the PM arguing that mobile devices and networks are "stealing our youngsters' childhood". A law could be enacted soon.
• Norway is planning to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to safeguard children from the "manipulative force of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to confirm the user details of social media account holders. Officials have suggested that an Australia-style ban remains "an options under consideration".
• In Spain, the prime minister has urged parliament to pass a bill increasing the legal age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has endorsed a related action, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in the Netherlands has urged guardians to restrict their children from social media up to the age of 15.

Across the European Union, the European parliament has approved a advisory motion supporting a ban for under-16s unless a parent decides otherwise is granted. While it cautions of the "habit-forming" nature of these platforms, the resolution does not create mandatory rules.

"An effective age barrier is a good foundation," said the parliamentarian driving the resolution.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Approach

Across Britain, the administration has kept open a potential ban, arguing that "no measure is being dismissed" but stressing any decision must be "supported by strong data".

Previously, momentum grew behind a proposal to enact restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end modified. Nonetheless, the government pledged to conduct more studies the topic.

Campaign organizations have expressed concerns. One foundation founded by the relatives of a young person who died after encountering disturbing social media material suggests that a blanket age ban might not make platforms safer and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of risk 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 children," stated a leading child protection advocate.

The US: A State-by-State Picture

Across America, legislation is mostly unfolding at the regional level amid federal gridlock.

• Utah requires adult approval for minors to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has signed a law banning those below 14 from accessing social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has passed a regulation limiting minors to one hour of social media use per day, with extra use needing parental permission.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have also introduced laws requiring parental consent for teenagers to set up social media profiles.

Even with widespread concern and suggestions from various individuals to copy Australia's path, a nationwide ban is presently seen as unlikely.

Global Views

Outside of Europe and the US, further countries are similarly exploring options.

• Malaysia plans to ban social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the required age for Instagram to 16.

However, global bodies strike a more measured tone. A major UN agency has cautioned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "may even have unintended consequences". The body highlights that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for marginalized youth and that bans should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to improve child safeguards.

While this global debate evolves, the actions of the Australian government and its followers demonstrate that policymakers globally are less and less content to delay for tech companies to act voluntarily.