🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial policy to restrict social platforms access for those under 16 is sparking debate internationally. Officials, child protection groups, and parents are monitoring closely to see if this tactic will set a precedent for other nations.

The European Momentum

Throughout Europe, a growing chorus of states are exploring similar measures.

• Denmark plans a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the PM arguing that phones and platforms are "taking away our children's innocence". The policy is expected to be passed soon.
• The Norwegian government is planning to implement a minimum age limit of 15, pointing to the need to protect young people from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• The Irish government is developing a digital ID system to confirm the age and identity of social media account holders. Authorities have indicated that an similar ban remains "one of the tools on the table".
• In Spain, the prime minister has urged the legislature to enact a bill lifting the minimum age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has floated the idea of a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has suggested a similar move, alongside an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has advised parents to restrict their youngsters from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has passed a symbolic motion demanding a ban for under-16s except if a parent decides otherwise is provided. Even though it cautions of the "compulsive" quality of these apps, the resolution does not enact enforceable legislation.

"A strong age limit is a useful first step," commented the parliamentarian behind the initiative.

The UK: A Watchful Stance

For the United Kingdom, the leadership has kept open a potential ban, stating that "no option is off the table" but maintaining any decision must be "based on strong research".

Earlier, interest gathered behind a bill to impose restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was eventually modified. Nonetheless, the administration vowed to conduct more studies the issue.

Campaign organizations have expressed concerns. An organization founded by the relatives of a teenager who died after being exposed to disturbing online content suggests that a strict age ban might not make platforms safer and could result in a "dangerous transition" of exposure when users become eligible.

"This ban is a response to the inability of the Silicon Valley to create tools that are safe and fit for minors," commented a leading peer.

America: A Decentralized Approach

Across America, action is primarily occurring at the local level amid federal inaction.

• Utah requires guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• Florida has passed a measure prohibiting children under fourteen from joining social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has approved a regulation limiting teenagers to 60 minutes of social media time per day, with extra access dependent on parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly enacted laws mandating adult authorization for minors to create social media accounts.

Despite widespread concern and suggestions from certain politicians to copy this path, a US-wide ban is right now seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Perspectives

Outside of these regions, further countries are likewise exploring options.

• Malaysia aims to prohibit social media for teenagers effective next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has increased the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

Yet, international organizations adopt a more nuanced tone. The UN children's agency has cautioned that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "could have unintended consequences". The organization points out that the internet can be a "lifeline" for isolated youth and that government action should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to improve user protection.

As this global debate continues, the steps of the Australian government and its followers show that states internationally are no longer willing to wait for the industry to act voluntarily.