🔗 Share this article

Australia's controversial action to restrict social media access for individuals under sixteen is sending ripples around the globe. Lawmakers, campaigners, and families are watching closely to see if this strategy will become a template for other nations.

European Trend

Across Europe, a increasing chorus of states are exploring comparable bans.

• Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for youth below 15, with the leader stating that mobile devices and apps are "robbing our children's innocence". The policy could be passed next year.
• Norway is preparing to implement a age restriction of 15, citing the need to protect children from the "power of the AI".
• Ireland is introducing a digital ID system to verify the user details of social media users. Officials have stated that an Australian-model ban could be "an measures on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the president has asked lawmakers to pass a law increasing the legal age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the president has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has endorsed a similar action, alongside an overnight "screen time restriction" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has urged families to restrict their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has passed a symbolic statement demanding a ban for minors without parental consent is provided. While it warns of the "habit-forming" nature of these services, the resolution does not establish enforceable legislation.

"An effective age barrier is a good first step," stated the European lawmaker behind the initiative.

The United Kingdom: A Cautious Approach

Across Britain, the administration has not ruled out a possible ban, stating that "no option is being dismissed" but insisting any policy must be "supported by robust data".

Earlier, interest grew behind a proposal to enact controls on social media use by minors, but it was eventually weakened. However, the administration committed to further research the issue.

Advocacy groups have raised concerns. One foundation established by the family of a girl who took her own life after viewing disturbing platform posts argues that a strict age ban may not improve online safety and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of harm when young people reach the legal age.

"This ban is a answer to the inability of the tech sector to build products and services that are safe and suitable for young users," commented a influential peer.

The US: A Decentralized Landscape

Across America, action is primarily happening at the regional government level against a backdrop of federal gridlock.

• Utah mandates adult approval for those under 18 to use social media and limits overnight use.
• Florida has passed a law barring those below 14 from joining social media, though it is subject to court battles.
• Virginia has enacted a rule capping teenagers to a single hour of social media access per day, with extra time dependent on a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also introduced measures mandating parental consent for minors to set up social media profiles.

Despite widespread concern and suggestions from some individuals to mimic the Australian path, a US-wide ban is currently seen as unlikely.

International Outlook

Beyond Europe and the US, further nations are also taking action.

• The Malaysian government intends to prohibit social media for those under sixteen starting from next year.
• Brazil has raised the required age for one major platform to 16.

However, international agencies adopt a more measured position. The UN children's agency has advised that social media bans have downsides and "might backfire". The organization points out that the internet can be a "vital connection" for marginalized youth and that government action should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to prioritize safety.

As this international conversation evolves, the actions of the Australian government and its followers demonstrate that governments globally are less and less prepared to wait for platforms to act voluntarily.