🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold move to ban social networking access for those under 16 is sending ripples internationally. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and guardians are monitoring intently to see if this strategy will inspire imitation for the rest of the world.

European Trend

Throughout Europe, a rising chorus of nations are moving toward parallel restrictions.

• The Danish government has announced a prohibition on social media for under-15s, with the PM arguing that smartphones and platforms are "robbing our children's childhood". Legislation may be formalized in the coming year.
• Norway is planning to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to protect young people from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is developing a digital ID system to verify the age and identity of social media users. Officials have stated that an Australia-style ban could be "one of the options on the table".
• In Spain, the prime minister has urged the legislature to approve a law increasing the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has endorsed a comparable move, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for older teenagers.
• The government in The Dutch government has urged guardians to prevent their children from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has approved a symbolic resolution demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 without a parent decides otherwise is granted. Although it cautions of the "compulsive" design of these services, the resolution does not create binding law.

"An effective age barrier is a good starting point," said the MEP driving the measure.

Britain: A Cautious Stance

Across Britain, the government has kept open a future ban, arguing that "no option is discarded" but maintaining any action must be "supported by robust data".

Last year, momentum built behind a proposal to enact restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was eventually weakened. However, the administration pledged to conduct more studies the matter.

Advocacy groups have voiced concerns. A prominent charity established by the loved ones of a young person who was lost after being exposed to harmful online content suggests that a blanket age ban might not protect children and could lead to a "cliff edge" of harm when users become eligible.

"This ban is a answer to the refusal of the social media companies to design products and services that are appropriate and suitable for children," said a prominent peer.

The United States: A Decentralized Picture

Stateside, action is primarily unfolding at the regional level due to federal inaction.

• Utah mandates adult approval for under-18s to use social media and limits late-night use.
• Florida has signed a bill prohibiting under-14s from accessing social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has enacted a regulation limiting under-16s to 60 minutes of social media access per day, with extra use requiring adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have similarly enacted measures demanding adult authorization for minors to create social media profiles.

Despite cross-party agreement and calls from certain figures to follow this path, a US-wide ban is presently seen as a distant prospect.

International Perspectives

Beyond these regions, other countries are likewise considering moves.

• Malaysia aims to restrict social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• Brazil has increased the minimum age for Instagram to 16.

However, global agencies adopt a more nuanced tone. A major UN agency has cautioned that social media bans pose dangers and "could prove counterproductive". The organization notes that social networks can be a "critical link" for isolated youth and that government action should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to invest in child safeguards.

As this worldwide debate continues, the steps of this nation and several other countries demonstrate that policymakers globally are no longer prepared to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.