🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold move to ban social platforms access for young people below 16 is sparking debate internationally. Politicians, safety advocates, and guardians are monitoring intently to see if this tactic will set a precedent for countries abroad.

The European Movement

Throughout Europe, a rising group of states are moving toward parallel measures.

• The Danish government has announced a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the leader stating that mobile devices and platforms are "stealing our youngsters' childhood". Legislation is expected to be passed soon.
• Norway is planning to implement a age restriction of 15, highlighting the need to protect young people from the "power of the recommendation systems".
• The Irish government is developing a digital wallet to confirm the user details of social media users. Authorities have stated that an Australia-style ban could be "one of the measures in reserve".
• In Spain, the prime minister has called on the legislature to approve a proposal increasing the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has suggested a similar action, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The government in The Dutch government has advised families to prevent their children from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has approved a symbolic resolution supporting a ban for minors without guardian approval is given. Even though it cautions of the "habit-forming" quality of these services, the step does not establish enforceable legislation.

"An effective age restriction is a good starting point," said a leading parliamentarian behind the initiative.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Approach

Across Britain, the government has kept open a future ban, stating that "nothing is off the table" but stressing any policy must be "supported by strong evidence".

Last year, support gathered behind a bill to enact limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was ultimately weakened. Instead, the administration pledged to further research the matter.

Advocacy groups have voiced apprehensions. An organization established by the relatives of a girl who died after being exposed to disturbing platform posts contends that a strict age ban might not improve online safety and could create a "sudden drop-off" of harm when users become eligible.

"The Australian ban is a response to the inability of the Silicon Valley to design platforms and apps that are safe and suitable for children," commented a leading online safety campaigner.

The United States: A Fragmented Picture

In the United States, regulation is mostly unfolding at the regional level due to national gridlock.

• Utah requires parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and restricts overnight use.
• Florida has enacted a bill prohibiting under-14s from joining social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has passed a regulation capping minors to a single hour of social media time per day, with extra access needing a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly introduced laws requiring parental consent for under-16s to create social media profiles.

Despite cross-party agreement and suggestions from certain politicians to follow this path, a federal ban is right now seen as improbable.

International Views

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

• Malaysia plans to ban social media for those under sixteen effective next year.
• Brazil has raised the access age for Instagram to 16.

Yet, global bodies adopt a more measured stance. A major UN agency has advised that social media bans have downsides and "might prove counterproductive". The organization highlights that social networks can be a "critical link" for isolated young people and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to invest in user protection.

As this worldwide discussion unfolds, the actions of the Australian government and others indicate that policymakers globally are less and less prepared to stand by for platforms to make changes on their own.