🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive move to prohibit social platforms access for individuals under sixteen is sparking debate internationally. Politicians, campaigners, and guardians are watching with great interest to see if this strategy will set a precedent for countries abroad.

The European Trend

In Europe, a growing number of states are moving toward comparable measures.

• Denmark has announced a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the leader arguing that mobile devices and platforms are "taking away our youngsters' youth". A law may be passed next year.
• Norway is preparing to implement a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to protect the young from the "power of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is working on a online verification tool to confirm the user details of social media users. Authorities have indicated that an Australian-model ban could be "an tools under consideration".
• In Spain, the president has called on lawmakers to enact a proposal raising the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a comparable action, potentially involving an overnight "internet blackout" for adolescents.
• The administration in the Netherlands has recommended parents to restrict their kids from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has adopted a advisory statement demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 unless parental consent is granted. Even though it cautions of the "compulsive" nature of these platforms, the step does not enact binding law.

"A clear age restriction is a useful starting point," stated one European lawmaker behind the initiative.

Britain: A Watchful Stance

Across Britain, the administration has not ruled out a possible ban, emphasizing that "nothing is being dismissed" but maintaining any decision must be "based on conclusive evidence".

Last year, support built behind a proposal to impose limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually watered down. However, the government pledged to investigate the topic.

Advocacy groups have voiced concerns. An organization set up by the family of a young person who was lost after viewing disturbing platform posts contends that a simple age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could create a "sudden drop-off" of harm when teens turn 16.

"This ban is a reaction to the inability of the Silicon Valley to design products and services that are secure and suitable for young users," commented a influential child protection advocate.

The US: A State-by-State Picture

Across America, legislation is mostly happening at the state level against a backdrop of country-wide inaction.

• Utah mandates parental consent for under-18s to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has signed a law prohibiting those below 14 from creating accounts on social media, though it faces legal challenges.
• The state of Virginia has passed a law capping minors to one hour of social media access per day, with additional access requiring parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise enacted measures mandating parental consent for under-16s to create social media accounts.

Despite bipartisan support and proposals from certain individuals to mimic the Australian lead, a US-wide ban is presently seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Perspectives

Beyond these regions, further countries are similarly considering moves.

• Malaysia plans to ban social media for those under sixteen effective next year.
• Brazil has increased the access age for the platform Instagram to 16.

Yet, global organizations adopt a more measured tone. Unicef has cautioned that social media bans carry risks and "might prove counterproductive". The organization highlights that social networks can be a "vital connection" for marginalized children and that bans should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to invest in user protection.

While this worldwide debate evolves, the policies of Australia and others show that states internationally are less and less content to delay for the industry to act voluntarily.