🔗 Share this article

The Australian bold move to ban social media access for those under 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and parents are watching closely to see if this tactic will set a precedent for countries abroad.

The European Trend

Throughout Europe, a increasing group of nations are considering similar bans.

• The Danish government plans a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the leader stating that smartphones and platforms are "stealing our children's innocence". The policy may be passed in the coming year.
• Norway is set to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard the young from the "influence of the algorithms".
• Ireland is developing a online verification tool to confirm the identity and age of social media account holders. Authorities have indicated that an Australia-style ban remains "a potential options under consideration".
• In Spain, the leader has urged parliament to pass a proposal increasing the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a related step, alongside an overnight "internet blackout" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has recommended guardians to prevent their kids from social media until 15.

Across the European Union, the bloc's legislature has passed a advisory resolution demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 unless guardian approval is granted. While it highlights of the "addictive" nature of these services, the resolution does not enact enforceable legislation.

"A clear age limit is a useful first step," said one MEP driving the measure.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Approach

Across Britain, the administration has remained open to a future ban, emphasizing that "no option is off the table" but stressing any policy must be "supported by strong data".

Earlier, momentum grew behind a proposal to introduce limits on social media use by minors, but it was eventually watered down. Nonetheless, the administration committed to conduct more studies the issue.

Campaign organizations have raised apprehensions. An organization set up by the loved ones of a teenager who was lost after being exposed to disturbing online content contends that a blanket age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could result in a "cliff edge" of exposure when users become eligible.

"This ban is a reaction to the inability of the Silicon Valley to build products and services that are secure and age appropriate for children," commented a prominent online safety campaigner.

The US: A State-by-State Picture

Across America, action is largely happening at the state level amid federal stalemate.

• The state of Utah mandates parental consent for under-18s to use social media and limits overnight use.
• Florida has passed a measure prohibiting under-14s from accessing social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
• Virginia has enacted a rule capping minors to a single hour of social media access per day, with additional use requiring adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have likewise introduced bills demanding adult authorization for teenagers to create social media accounts.

Even with cross-party agreement and calls from some politicians to mimic this example, a nationwide ban is currently seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Outlook

Outside of Europe and the US, additional countries are likewise taking action.

• Malaysia aims to restrict social media for those under sixteen beginning next year.
• Brazil has increased the minimum age for the platform Instagram to 16.

But, global bodies strike a more nuanced position. A major UN agency has warned that social media bans pose dangers and "could backfire". The body points out that social networks can be a "lifeline" for isolated young people and that government action should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to improve safety.

As this international debate evolves, the actions of this nation and others demonstrate that governments internationally are less and less prepared to wait for tech companies to act voluntarily.