🔗 Share this article

Australia's controversial action to prohibit social media access for individuals under sixteen is sending ripples worldwide. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and guardians are watching intently to see if this strategy will set a precedent for other nations.

European Movement

Across Europe, a rising group of nations are considering similar restrictions.

• Denmark has stated a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the PM arguing that mobile devices and networks are "stealing our kids' youth". A law may be passed soon.
• The Norwegian government is preparing to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to shield the young from the "influence of the AI".
• The Irish government is introducing a digital wallet to verify the user details of social media participants. Authorities have indicated that an Australian-model ban remains "one of the options on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the president has called on the legislature to enact a law raising the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has proposed a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has recommended a similar action, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The government in The Netherlands has urged guardians to restrict their children from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has passed a symbolic resolution calling for a ban for minors without guardian approval is provided. Even though it highlights of the "habit-forming" quality of these platforms, the step does not establish binding law.

"A strong age barrier is a solid first step," commented the European lawmaker behind the resolution.

The United Kingdom: A Watchful Stance

Across Britain, the government has remained open to a possible ban, arguing that "no option is being dismissed" but maintaining any action must be "supported by strong data".

Previously, support built behind a legislative effort to introduce limits on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately modified. However, the government committed to conduct more studies the matter.

Charities have expressed apprehensions. A prominent charity set up by the relatives of a young person who took her own life after encountering harmful platform posts argues that a strict age ban may not protect children and could create a "cliff edge" of exposure when users become eligible.

"The Australian ban is a reaction to the refusal of the social media companies to create products and services that are safe and age appropriate for children," commented a prominent online safety campaigner.

The US: A State-by-State Approach

Stateside, action is mostly occurring at the state government level due to country-wide inaction.

• Utah mandates guardian permission for minors to use social media and restricts nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has passed a measure banning those below 14 from joining social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has approved a rule capping teenagers to 60 minutes of social media time per day, with any further time dependent on adult consent.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise passed bills requiring adult authorization for under-16s to set up social media accounts.

Despite widespread concern and suggestions from certain politicians to follow this example, a US-wide ban is presently seen as improbable.

Worldwide Outlook

Apart from the West, other nations are likewise taking action.

• Malaysia aims to restrict social media for under-16s beginning next year.
• Brazil has raised the access age for Instagram to 16.

Yet, world bodies strike a more measured tone. The UN children's agency has cautioned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "may even prove counterproductive". The agency notes that the internet can be a "lifeline" for vulnerable children and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to prioritize child safeguards.

Even as this international conversation evolves, the policies of Australia and others show that governments internationally are less and less prepared to delay for tech companies to make changes on their own.