🔗 Share this article

Australia's decisive policy to prohibit social platforms access for those under 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Politicians, campaigners, and families are observing with great interest to see if this approach will set a precedent for other nations.

The European Trend

Across Europe, a rising number of countries are exploring similar measures.

• The Danish government plans a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM arguing that smartphones and apps are "robbing our youngsters' childhood". The policy is expected to be enacted next year.
• Norway is preparing to introduce a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to shield children from the "power of the algorithms".
• Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to verify the user details of social media users. The media minister have stated that an Australia-style ban remains "a potential measures in reserve".
• In The Spanish government, the leader has urged parliament to pass a law increasing the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In The French government, the head of state has proposed a ban for those under fifteen, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a related move, potentially involving an overnight "internet blackout" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The government in The Netherlands has urged families to block their youngsters from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has approved a non-binding motion demanding a ban for under-16s except if parental consent is provided. Although it highlights of the "addictive" quality of these platforms, the step does not create binding law.

"A strong age limit is a useful starting point," said a leading parliamentarian driving the resolution.

The UK: A Watchful Approach

For the United Kingdom, the government has kept open a possible ban, stating that "no option is discarded" but maintaining any action must be "grounded in robust evidence".

Previously, support gathered behind a legislative effort to impose controls on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually modified. Nonetheless, the government committed to investigate the topic.

Campaign organizations have expressed concerns. An organization founded by the relatives of a girl who was lost after viewing disturbing online content argues that a blanket age ban may not make platforms safer and could result in a "sudden drop-off" of harm when young people turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the refusal of the Silicon Valley to design platforms and apps that are safe and fit for minors," said a leading online safety campaigner.

America: A State-by-State Picture

In the United States, legislation is primarily unfolding at the regional level amid national gridlock.

• Utah mandates parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has enacted a law prohibiting children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it faces legal challenges.
• Virginia has passed a regulation capping teenagers to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with extra use requiring parental permission.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly introduced bills requiring guardian approval for under-16s to set up social media accounts.

Even with bipartisan support and proposals from certain politicians to copy this lead, a US-wide ban is presently seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Views

Apart from these regions, additional nations are similarly exploring options.

• Malaysia plans to ban social media for teenagers starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

But, international bodies strike a more cautious tone. Unicef has cautioned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "may even backfire". The agency points out that social networks can be a "lifeline" for isolated children and that bans should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to prioritize user protection.

Even as this global debate evolves, the policies of Australia and its followers indicate that policymakers internationally are less and less prepared to wait for tech companies to self-regulate.