🔗 Share this article

The Australian controversial move to ban social networking access for those under 16 is sending ripples worldwide. Lawmakers, campaigners, and families are watching with great interest to see if this approach will inspire imitation for other nations.

European Movement

Throughout Europe, a increasing group of states are exploring comparable measures.

• Denmark plans a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister declaring that smartphones and apps are "stealing our kids' childhood". A law may be formalized next year.
• The Norwegian government is set to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, pointing to the need to shield young people from the "influence of the AI".
• The Irish government is developing a digital ID system to verify the age and identity of social media participants. Officials have stated that an Australia-style ban is "an options on the table".
• In Spain, the president has called on lawmakers to pass a law increasing the minimum age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has endorsed a similar move, alongside an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The authorities in the Netherlands has advised families to restrict their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has passed a advisory resolution supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 except if parental consent is given. Although it highlights of the "compulsive" nature of these services, the move does not create enforceable legislation.

"A clear age barrier is a solid foundation," said a leading European lawmaker behind the measure.

Britain: A Cautious Approach

In the UK, the leadership has kept open a future ban, emphasizing that "no measure is discarded" but insisting any action must be "based on strong data".

Previously, momentum grew behind a legislative effort to introduce restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately watered down. Nonetheless, the government pledged to further research the matter.

Advocacy groups have expressed apprehensions. An organization set up by the family of a young person who was lost after viewing harmful platform posts argues that a simple age ban might not protect children and could result in a "cliff edge" of exposure when young people reach the legal age.

"The Australian ban is a reaction to the refusal of the social media companies to design tools that are secure and age appropriate for children," commented a influential child protection advocate.

America: A Fragmented Approach

Stateside, legislation is largely occurring at the local government level due to country-wide stalemate.

• Utah mandates parental consent for minors to use social media and limits late-night use.
• Florida has passed a law barring those below 14 from joining social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has enacted a law restricting teenagers to one hour of social media access per day, with any further use dependent on adult consent.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have likewise introduced laws demanding parental consent for teenagers to open social media profiles.

Despite bipartisan support and calls from certain figures to mimic the Australian path, a federal ban is presently seen as improbable.

International Perspectives

Outside of the West, additional states are also exploring options.

• The Malaysian government plans to restrict social media for teenagers effective next year.
• Brazil has increased the minimum age for the platform Instagram to 16.

However, international organizations strike a more measured position. A major UN agency has warned that social media bans carry risks and "could have unintended consequences". The organization highlights that social networks can be a "lifeline" for isolated children and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for platform operators to improve child safeguards.

As this global conversation unfolds, the actions of this nation and several other countries show that states internationally are increasingly content to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.