🔗 Share this article

The Australian decisive action to prohibit social platforms access for those under 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and guardians are monitoring closely to see if this strategy will set a precedent for the rest of the world.

European Movement

In Europe, a growing group of nations are moving toward comparable measures.

• The Danish government has stated a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister stating that mobile devices and platforms are "robbing our youngsters' childhood". A law is expected to be passed next year.
• Norway is planning to enforce a access barrier of 15, citing the need to shield young people from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• The Irish government is developing a online verification tool to confirm the user details of social media participants. The media minister have indicated that an Australia-style ban could be "one of the options on the table".
• In Spain, the president has asked lawmakers to pass a law lifting the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a related step, including an overnight "internet blackout" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The authorities in the Netherlands has advised families to prevent their kids from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the bloc's legislature has passed a non-binding motion demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 unless guardian approval is provided. Even though it highlights of the "habit-forming" quality of these platforms, the step does not enact mandatory rules.

"A clear age barrier is a useful foundation," commented one MEP behind the measure.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Stance

In the UK, the administration has remained open to a future ban, arguing that "no option is off the table" but stressing any policy must be "supported by strong data".

Previously, momentum grew behind a legislative effort to enact restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was in the end weakened. Instead, the administration committed to further research the matter.

Campaign organizations have raised concerns. One foundation set up by the family of a teenager who took her own life after being exposed to dangerous social media material suggests that a simple age ban may not make platforms safer and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when teens turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a response to the failure of the social media companies to create products and services that are secure and age appropriate for minors," commented a prominent peer.

The US: A State-by-State Landscape

Stateside, action is primarily occurring at the regional government level against a backdrop of federal inaction.

• Utah demands guardian permission for minors to use social media and restricts nighttime use.
• Florida has passed a bill barring under-14s from accessing social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has enacted a law limiting minors to a single hour of social media access per day, with additional time dependent on parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly introduced measures mandating parental consent for teenagers to create social media profiles.

Despite cross-party agreement and proposals from certain politicians to mimic Australia's path, a nationwide ban is presently seen as unlikely.

Global Perspectives

Beyond these regions, other nations are similarly considering moves.

• Malaysia intends to restrict social media for those under sixteen beginning next year.
• Brazil has increased the access age for Instagram to 16.

Yet, world agencies take a more cautious tone. Unicef has advised that social media bans have downsides and "may even prove counterproductive". The body highlights that the internet can be a "critical link" for marginalized children and that government action should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to invest in safety.

Even as this global debate evolves, the actions of this nation and others show that policymakers internationally are increasingly willing to delay for tech companies to self-regulate.