🔗 Share this article

The Australian controversial move to prohibit social platforms access for individuals under sixteen is sending ripples worldwide. Politicians, child protection groups, and guardians are monitoring closely to see if this strategy will become a template for the rest of the world.

European Movement

Across Europe, a growing number of states are exploring parallel bans.

• Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister stating that smartphones and networks are "stealing our kids' innocence". The policy is expected to be enacted next year.
• Norway is set to introduce a age restriction of 15, highlighting the need to shield young people from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• Ireland is working on a digital ID system to verify the user details of social media users. The media minister have suggested that an Australian-model ban remains "an measures on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the president has asked parliament to approve a proposal increasing the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a legislative committee has recommended a comparable action, potentially involving an overnight "internet blackout" for older teenagers.
• The government in the Netherlands has advised guardians to block their youngsters from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has adopted a non-binding resolution demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 without a parent decides otherwise is provided. While it warns of the "habit-forming" design of these services, the step does not enact binding law.

"A strong age restriction is a solid foundation," said the parliamentarian driving the resolution.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Approach

Across Britain, the leadership has kept open a possible ban, emphasizing that "no measure is discarded" but insisting any decision must be "grounded in conclusive evidence".

Last year, momentum built behind a bill to introduce restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end weakened. However, the government vowed to conduct more studies the matter.

Campaign organizations have voiced apprehensions. A prominent charity founded by the loved ones of a young person who was lost after being exposed to dangerous platform posts suggests that a strict age ban could fail to protect children and could result in a "sudden drop-off" of risk when teens reach the legal age.

"This ban is a reaction to the failure of the Silicon Valley to create products and services that are secure and fit for young users," said a influential online safety campaigner.

America: A State-by-State Approach

Stateside, regulation is largely occurring at the state government level amid country-wide inaction.

• The state of Utah mandates adult approval for under-18s to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• Florida has enacted a bill prohibiting children under fourteen from joining social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has approved a rule capping under-16s to a single hour of social media time per day, with extra access dependent on adult consent.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also enacted laws mandating parental consent for under-16s to open social media profiles.

Despite bipartisan support and suggestions from certain individuals to follow this example, a federal ban is currently seen as unlikely.

International Views

Beyond the West, other nations are similarly considering moves.

• Malaysia aims to restrict social media for teenagers effective next year.
• Brazil has raised the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

But, world bodies take a more measured position. The UN children's agency has cautioned that age-based restrictions pose dangers and "may even prove counterproductive". The body points out that social networks can be a "critical link" for isolated youth and that bans should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to prioritize safety.

As this international conversation evolves, the actions of the Australian government and its followers demonstrate that governments globally are no longer content to delay for the industry to act voluntarily.