🔗 Share this article

The Australian bold action to restrict social platforms access for young people below 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Politicians, campaigners, and families are monitoring with great interest to see if this approach will become a template for other nations.

The European Momentum

Across Europe, a growing chorus of nations are exploring parallel restrictions.

• Denmark plans a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the leader stating that mobile devices and apps are "stealing our children's childhood". Legislation is expected to be enacted soon.
• Norway is set to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to safeguard young people from the "power of the AI".
• Ireland is introducing a digital ID system to authenticate the user details of social media users. The media minister have indicated that an Australian-model ban could be "one of the tools in reserve".
• In The Spanish government, the leader has urged lawmakers to pass a bill increasing the minimum age for using social media to 16.
• In The French government, the leader has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has endorsed a comparable step, alongside an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The government in The Dutch government has recommended guardians to prevent their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has adopted a advisory motion supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 except if a parent decides otherwise is granted. While it cautions of the "habit-forming" design of these platforms, the step does not create enforceable legislation.

"An effective age barrier is a good foundation," stated the MEP behind the resolution.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Eye

For the United Kingdom, the administration has kept open a potential ban, arguing that "no measure is discarded" but insisting any decision must be "grounded in strong research".

Last year, interest gathered behind a legislative effort to impose controls on social media use by minors, but it was eventually weakened. Instead, the government pledged to conduct more studies the matter.

Advocacy groups have raised apprehensions. An organization established by the relatives of a teenager who was lost after encountering harmful online content contends that a blanket age ban might not protect children and could create a "cliff edge" of exposure when teens become eligible.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the inability of the tech sector to create tools that are appropriate and fit for children," commented a leading online safety campaigner.

The United States: A Fragmented Approach

Stateside, legislation is mostly occurring at the regional level against a backdrop of national inaction.

• Utah requires adult approval for minors to use social media and controls overnight use.
• Florida has enacted a bill barring under-14s from accessing social media, though it faces legal challenges.
• The state of Virginia has approved a regulation restricting under-16s to one hour of social media use per day, with any further use requiring a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise introduced bills mandating guardian approval for under-16s to set up social media accounts.

Despite bipartisan support and suggestions from certain individuals to copy the Australian example, a federal ban is presently seen as improbable.

Global Outlook

Apart from Europe and the US, additional states are also exploring options.

• The Malaysian government aims to ban social media for teenagers effective next year.
• Brazil has raised the required age for one major platform to 16.

However, global organizations adopt a more cautious stance. The UN children's agency has advised that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "might backfire". The organization highlights that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for marginalized children and that government action should not be a "excuse" for social media firms to prioritize user protection.

As this worldwide debate continues, the actions of this nation and several other countries show that policymakers globally are no longer willing to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.