🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold move to prohibit social networking access for young people below 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Officials, campaigners, and families are monitoring closely to see if this strategy will set a precedent for other nations.

Across Europe Momentum

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

• Denmark has announced a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister arguing that mobile devices and platforms are "stealing our kids' childhood". A law could be passed in the coming year.
• Norway is planning to enforce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to shield the young from the "influence of the AI".
• Ireland is introducing a digital ID system to confirm the age and identity of social media users. Officials have stated that an Australia-style ban could be "a potential measures under consideration".
• In Spain, the leader has called on parliament to enact a law raising the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a similar action, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in The Dutch government has advised families to restrict their children from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has approved a non-binding resolution demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 unless parental consent is given. While it highlights of the "compulsive" design of these platforms, the step does not enact mandatory rules.

"A strong age barrier is a good foundation," stated the parliamentarian behind the resolution.

Britain: A Cautious Approach

In the UK, the government has kept open a potential ban, arguing that "no measure is discarded" but stressing any decision must be "supported by robust data".

Last year, interest gathered behind a bill to introduce restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately weakened. However, the government committed to investigate the issue.

Campaign organizations have voiced warnings. An organization founded by the loved ones of a young person who died after encountering harmful social media material contends that a blanket age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of risk when young people turn 16.

"This ban is a response to the failure of the social media companies to build tools that are appropriate and age appropriate for children," stated a influential child protection advocate.

The US: A Fragmented Picture

In the United States, regulation is mostly unfolding at the state level amid federal inaction.

• Utah demands parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a bill barring children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
• The state of Virginia has passed a law limiting teenagers to 60 minutes of social media time per day, with any further use dependent on a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have likewise introduced bills demanding guardian approval for teenagers to create social media profiles.

Despite bipartisan support and calls from some politicians to follow the Australian lead, a federal ban is presently seen as improbable.

Global Perspectives

Apart from Europe and the US, other nations are similarly exploring options.

• The Malaysian government plans to ban social media for teenagers starting from next year.
• Brazil has raised the access age for Instagram to 16.

But, international bodies strike a more nuanced stance. A major UN agency has cautioned that age-based restrictions have downsides and "might have unintended consequences". The body notes that social networks can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable children and that bans should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to invest in child safeguards.

As this worldwide conversation continues, the policies of the Australian government and several other countries indicate that states internationally are less and less prepared to wait for the industry to make changes on their own.