🔗 Share this article

The Australian decisive action to prohibit social media access for those under 16 is creating waves worldwide. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and families are monitoring intently to see if this approach will set a precedent for the rest of the world.

The European Movement

Throughout Europe, a rising group of nations are exploring comparable measures.

• Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for youth below 15, with the leader arguing that phones and apps are "stealing our kids' innocence". Legislation may be formalized in the coming year.
• Norway is preparing to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to shield children from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• Ireland is working on a digital ID system to authenticate the identity and age of social media users. Officials have indicated that an Australian-model ban could be "one of the options in reserve".
• In The Spanish government, the president has asked lawmakers to enact a proposal lifting the legal age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has endorsed a related move, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The government in The Netherlands has urged parents to restrict their kids from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has passed a non-binding motion demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 except if a parent decides otherwise is granted. Although it highlights of the "compulsive" quality of these services, the step does not enact enforceable legislation.

"An effective age barrier is a solid foundation," commented a leading European lawmaker supporting the initiative.

The United Kingdom: A Cautious Approach

For the United Kingdom, the leadership has kept open a future ban, arguing that "nothing is discarded" but stressing any policy must be "supported by strong data".

Previously, support grew behind a legislative effort to introduce controls on social media use by minors, but it was in the end weakened. Instead, the administration committed to conduct more studies the matter.

Advocacy groups have expressed warnings. One foundation founded by the loved ones of a young person who died after being exposed to harmful online content contends that a simple age ban may not protect children and could result in a "cliff edge" of exposure when users reach the legal age.

"The Australian ban is a answer to the refusal of the Silicon Valley to design products and services that are appropriate and fit for minors," stated a influential online safety campaigner.

The US: A State-by-State Approach

Stateside, legislation is mostly occurring at the state level due to national inaction.

• Utah requires parental consent for under-18s to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a bill banning children under fourteen from accessing social media, though it faces legal challenges.
• Virginia has approved a rule limiting teenagers to one hour of social media use per day, with additional use dependent on a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have similarly enacted laws mandating parental consent for under-16s to set up social media presences.

Even with cross-party agreement and proposals from some individuals to copy Australia's path, a US-wide ban is presently seen as improbable.

Worldwide Views

Apart from these regions, other states are also exploring options.

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

Yet, world organizations strike a more cautious stance. The UN children's agency has warned that social media bans carry risks and "could have unintended consequences". The body points out that social networks can be a "lifeline" for vulnerable young people and that regulation should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to prioritize child safeguards.

As this global debate unfolds, the actions of Australia and its followers show that states internationally are less and less content to delay for platforms to self-regulate.