🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive policy to ban social networking access for young people below 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Lawmakers, campaigners, and guardians are watching closely to see if this tactic will inspire imitation for countries abroad.

Across Europe Momentum

Across Europe, a growing group of states are exploring parallel bans.

• Denmark plans a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister stating that mobile devices and platforms are "taking away our children's youth". Legislation could be formalized soon.
• Norway is planning to implement a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard young people from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• Ireland is developing a digital ID system to authenticate the age and identity of social media participants. The media minister have suggested that an Australian-model ban could be "one of the tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the president has urged the legislature to pass a proposal increasing the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the president has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a related action, including an overnight "internet blackout" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in The Dutch government has recommended parents to restrict their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has approved a non-binding statement calling for a ban for teenagers under 16 except if parental consent is provided. Although it highlights of the "compulsive" quality of these services, the step does not create binding law.

"A strong age limit is a good first step," commented one European lawmaker behind the initiative.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Eye

For the United Kingdom, the government has kept open a potential ban, emphasizing that "no option is being dismissed" but maintaining any decision must be "supported by robust data".

Earlier, momentum grew behind a proposal to impose limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually modified. Nonetheless, the government pledged to investigate the topic.

Charities have expressed apprehensions. A prominent charity established by the family of a young person who was lost after encountering harmful online content contends that a blanket age ban might not make platforms safer and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of harm when young people turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a reaction to the refusal of the social media companies to design tools that are secure and fit for young users," commented a leading online safety campaigner.

America: A Fragmented Approach

Stateside, legislation is mostly unfolding at the state government level amid country-wide inaction.

• Utah demands parental consent for under-18s to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• Florida has passed a law banning under-14s from joining social media, though it is entangled in court battles.
• Virginia has passed a regulation limiting minors to a single hour of social media access per day, with additional time dependent on a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise introduced laws requiring guardian approval for teenagers to open social media profiles.

Even with bipartisan support and calls from certain figures to follow Australia's example, a US-wide ban is presently seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Perspectives

Outside of Europe and the US, other states are likewise considering moves.

• Malaysia aims to restrict social media for under-16s effective next year.
• Brazil has increased the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

However, international agencies adopt a more nuanced tone. The UN children's agency has advised that social media bans have downsides and "may even backfire". The organization notes that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for marginalized children and that regulation should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to improve child safeguards.

Even as this worldwide discussion continues, the steps of this nation and several other countries indicate that states globally are less and less prepared to wait for tech companies to act voluntarily.