🔗 Share this article

The Australian controversial policy to prohibit social platforms access for individuals under sixteen is creating waves around the globe. Politicians, child protection groups, and families are watching closely to see if this approach will set a precedent for countries abroad.

The European Momentum

Throughout Europe, a rising chorus of states are moving toward parallel restrictions.

• Denmark has stated a prohibition on social media for under-15s, with the PM declaring that smartphones and networks are "robbing our children's youth". A law may be passed in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is set to implement a age restriction of 15, citing the need to shield children from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• The Irish government is working on a online verification tool to confirm the user details of social media users. Officials have indicated that an similar ban remains "an tools in reserve".
• In The Spanish government, the prime minister has urged parliament to enact a proposal increasing the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has recommended a similar step, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in The Netherlands has advised parents to restrict their kids from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has passed a advisory statement demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 except if parental consent is granted. Although it cautions of the "compulsive" nature of these platforms, the step does not establish enforceable legislation.

"An effective age restriction is a good foundation," commented one MEP supporting the initiative.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Approach

Across Britain, the administration has not ruled out a future ban, emphasizing that "no measure is off the table" but insisting any policy must be "grounded in conclusive research".

Previously, momentum gathered behind a bill to enact restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was in the end weakened. Instead, the government committed to investigate the issue.

Charities have voiced concerns. One foundation established by the loved ones of a girl who was lost after being exposed to dangerous online content contends that a simple age ban might not improve online safety and could create a "dangerous transition" of risk when users become eligible.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the failure of the tech sector to create products and services that are safe and suitable for young users," said a leading online safety campaigner.

The US: A State-by-State Approach

Across America, regulation is primarily occurring at the regional level amid country-wide inaction.

• The state of Utah mandates guardian permission for minors to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has passed a bill barring children under fourteen from joining social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has passed a law capping teenagers to one hour of social media use per day, with additional time requiring parental permission.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly passed measures mandating guardian approval for teenagers to set up social media profiles.

Even with bipartisan support and suggestions from some individuals to follow the Australian example, a federal ban is presently seen as unlikely.

Global Perspectives

Beyond the West, additional countries are similarly considering moves.

• Malaysia plans to ban social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• Brazil has raised the access age for Instagram to 16.

However, world organizations strike a more measured position. Unicef has advised that age-based restrictions pose dangers and "may even prove counterproductive". The body points out that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for marginalized young people and that bans should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to improve child safeguards.

As this global debate unfolds, the actions of the Australian government and others indicate that policymakers internationally are less and less willing to delay for platforms to make changes on their own.