🔗 Share this article

Australia's controversial action to restrict social media access for those under 16 is sparking debate internationally. Lawmakers, campaigners, and guardians are watching closely to see if this tactic will inspire imitation for other nations.

European Movement

In Europe, a growing chorus of states are considering similar bans.

• Denmark has stated a prohibition on social media for under-15s, with the PM arguing that mobile devices and apps are "taking away our children's childhood". A law is expected to be passed next year.
• Norway is planning to introduce a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to protect children from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• Ireland is working on a digital ID system to verify the age and identity of social media users. Officials have suggested that an Australia-style ban is "a potential measures on the table".
• In Spain, the president has urged the legislature to approve a proposal lifting the access age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the president has proposed a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has recommended a comparable step, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has advised parents to block their youngsters from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has passed a symbolic resolution supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 without a parent decides otherwise is provided. Although it highlights of the "habit-forming" quality of these services, the resolution does not enact binding law.

"A clear age restriction is a useful starting point," stated a leading European lawmaker driving the initiative.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Eye

For the United Kingdom, the government has remained open to a future ban, stating that "no option is discarded" but insisting any policy must be "based on robust evidence".

Previously, interest grew behind a bill to impose restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end modified. Instead, the government pledged to further research the topic.

Campaign organizations have expressed warnings. An organization established by the loved ones of a teenager who died after viewing harmful online content suggests that a strict age ban might not improve online safety and could lead to a "dangerous transition" of exposure when teens turn 16.

"This ban is a answer to the refusal of the tech sector to create tools that are appropriate and suitable for young users," said a influential online safety campaigner.

The United States: A Fragmented Picture

In the United States, action is primarily happening at the state level amid national inaction.

• The state of Utah demands parental consent for minors to use social media and controls overnight use.
• Florida has passed a measure barring under-14s from accessing social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has approved a law capping under-16s to 60 minutes of social media access per day, with any further use requiring parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have likewise enacted measures mandating adult authorization for minors to set up social media profiles.

Despite bipartisan support and suggestions from some politicians to mimic the Australian lead, a federal ban is currently seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Outlook

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

• Malaysia plans to restrict social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has raised the required age for one major platform to 16.

But, global bodies strike a more cautious stance. Unicef has cautioned that social media bans carry risks and "might backfire". The agency highlights that social networks can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable children and that government action should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to prioritize user protection.

While this worldwide conversation unfolds, the policies of this nation and its followers indicate that policymakers globally are no longer prepared to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.