🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold move to prohibit social media access for young people below 16 is sending ripples internationally. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and parents are watching intently to see if this tactic will become a template for countries abroad.

Across Europe Movement

Across Europe, a rising chorus of states are moving toward parallel measures.

• The Danish government has stated a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the leader arguing that smartphones and networks are "stealing our children's childhood". Legislation could be formalized in the coming year.
• Norway is preparing to implement a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard children from the "influence of the algorithms".
• Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to confirm the user details of social media participants. Authorities have indicated that an similar ban remains "a potential options on the table".
• In Spain, the president has asked parliament to approve a bill raising the minimum age for using social media to 16.
• In The French government, the leader has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has endorsed a comparable move, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in the Netherlands has urged parents to restrict their youngsters from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has approved a non-binding statement demanding a ban for minors unless a parent decides otherwise is granted. While it cautions of the "habit-forming" quality of these platforms, the move does not create binding law.

"A clear age restriction is a good foundation," commented a leading parliamentarian supporting the measure.

Britain: A Cautious Eye

In the UK, the administration has not ruled out a future ban, stating that "nothing is being dismissed" but insisting any action must be "grounded in conclusive data".

Last year, interest grew behind a legislative effort to impose controls on social media use by minors, but it was in the end weakened. Instead, the administration pledged to further research the matter.

Advocacy groups have expressed apprehensions. One foundation set up by the family of a girl who was lost after viewing disturbing social media material argues that a strict age ban may not protect children and could create a "sudden drop-off" of harm when teens become eligible.

"This ban is a answer to the failure of the Silicon Valley to create tools that are safe and suitable for minors," stated a prominent child protection advocate.

The United States: A State-by-State Approach

In the United States, action is largely occurring at the regional government level due to national gridlock.

• Utah requires guardian permission for minors to use social media and limits overnight use.
• The state of Florida has enacted a law prohibiting children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it is entangled in court battles.
• Virginia has passed a regulation restricting minors to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with extra use needing a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also introduced measures mandating parental consent for teenagers to open social media accounts.

Even with bipartisan support and proposals from various politicians to copy the Australian lead, a nationwide ban is presently seen as improbable.

International Outlook

Apart from Europe and the US, other states are similarly exploring options.

• Malaysia plans to prohibit social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• Brazil has lifted the access age for the platform Instagram to 16.

But, international bodies strike a more measured position. A major UN agency has warned that age-based restrictions have downsides and "may even have unintended consequences". The body notes that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for isolated youth and that bans should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to invest in user protection.

While this global conversation evolves, the actions of this nation and others indicate that governments internationally are less and less willing to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.