🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold move to prohibit social networking access for individuals under sixteen is sparking debate internationally. Politicians, safety advocates, and guardians are watching closely to see if this tactic will set a precedent for countries abroad.

The European Movement

Throughout Europe, a increasing group of nations are moving toward similar measures.

• Denmark has stated a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the PM declaring that mobile devices and platforms are "robbing our kids' youth". The policy could be formalized soon.
• Norway is planning to enforce a age restriction of 15, pointing to the need to shield young people from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• Ireland is working on a digital wallet to verify the user details of social media account holders. The media minister have indicated that an Australian-model ban is "a potential measures under consideration".
• In Spain, the leader has urged the legislature to pass a proposal raising the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has suggested a similar step, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The administration in the Netherlands has advised parents to prevent their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

Across the European Union, the bloc's legislature has adopted a advisory motion demanding a ban for minors without a parent decides otherwise is provided. While it cautions of the "habit-forming" design of these platforms, the step does not enact mandatory rules.

"A clear age barrier is a good starting point," stated one parliamentarian driving the measure.

The United Kingdom: A Watchful Approach

For the United Kingdom, the government has kept open a future ban, stating that "nothing is off the table" but stressing any policy must be "based on strong data".

Earlier, support gathered behind a legislative effort to enact limits on social media use by minors, but it was in the end watered down. However, the government vowed to investigate the matter.

Advocacy groups have expressed warnings. An organization founded by the relatives of a young person who died after encountering dangerous platform posts argues that a simple age ban might not protect children and could create a "cliff edge" of exposure when users turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the failure of the tech sector to create products and services that are secure and fit for children," stated a leading online safety campaigner.

The United States: A Fragmented Picture

Across America, legislation is mostly occurring at the state government level due to country-wide gridlock.

• Utah requires adult approval for under-18s to use social media and controls late-night use.
• Florida has passed a bill banning children under fourteen from accessing social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has passed a regulation restricting under-16s to a single hour of social media use per day, with additional use requiring parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise enacted bills demanding parental consent for teenagers to set up social media profiles.

Despite bipartisan support and calls from some individuals to follow Australia's path, a US-wide ban is right now seen as unlikely.

Global Perspectives

Apart from these regions, further states are likewise considering moves.

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

However, global organizations adopt a more measured stance. A major UN agency has warned that social media bans pose dangers and "may even backfire". The agency notes that online platforms can be a "critical link" for marginalized young people and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to invest in child safeguards.

While this global discussion continues, the steps of the Australian government and its followers show that policymakers internationally are less and less prepared to delay for platforms to make changes on their own.