🔗 Share this article

The Australian decisive action to prohibit social platforms access for those under 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and families are monitoring intently to see if this approach will become a template for the rest of the world.

European Movement

In Europe, a growing chorus of countries are exploring comparable restrictions.

• Denmark has announced a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister stating that smartphones and platforms are "taking away our kids' childhood". The policy is expected to be formalized soon.
• Norway is preparing to implement a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to shield young people from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• Ireland is working on a digital ID system to verify the identity and age of social media users. The media minister have suggested that an Australia-style ban could be "an tools on the table".
• In Spain, the prime minister has called on parliament to enact a law increasing the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has suggested a similar move, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has urged parents to prevent their children from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the bloc's legislature has adopted a advisory statement supporting a ban for minors except if parental consent is granted. While it cautions of the "compulsive" nature of these platforms, the resolution does not create mandatory rules.

"A clear age barrier is a solid first step," stated one MEP behind the initiative.

Britain: A Watchful Approach

For the United Kingdom, the leadership has kept open a future ban, arguing that "no measure is off the table" but stressing any decision must be "grounded in robust research".

Last year, momentum gathered behind a bill to enact controls on social media use by minors, but it was in the end weakened. Instead, the administration committed to conduct more studies the issue.

Advocacy groups have voiced concerns. One foundation founded by the loved ones of a girl who was lost after viewing harmful online content argues that a blanket age ban might not make platforms safer and could result in a "sudden drop-off" of risk when users reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the failure of the Silicon Valley to create tools that are appropriate and fit for young users," stated a prominent peer.

The US: A Decentralized Approach

Across America, legislation is primarily unfolding at the regional level amid national gridlock.

• The state of Utah mandates adult approval for under-18s to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a measure barring those below 14 from accessing social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has enacted a law capping teenagers to a single hour of social media use per day, with additional use dependent on a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have likewise passed bills demanding parental consent for teenagers to create social media profiles.

Even with cross-party agreement and calls from certain individuals to follow the Australian example, a nationwide ban is right now seen as unlikely.

International Perspectives

Beyond the West, additional states are also exploring options.

• Malaysia plans to ban social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the access age for Instagram to 16.

However, global bodies adopt a more nuanced tone. Unicef has cautioned that age-based restrictions have downsides and "could prove counterproductive". The organization notes that the internet can be a "lifeline" for vulnerable young people and that bans should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to prioritize user protection.

As this global debate evolves, the steps of the Australian government and others demonstrate that states around the world are less and less prepared to stand by for tech companies to make changes on their own.