🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial action to prohibit social platforms access for those under 16 is creating waves internationally. Officials, campaigners, and guardians are observing intently to see if this tactic will set a precedent for other nations.

Across Europe Momentum

In Europe, a increasing group of states are moving toward similar measures.

• Denmark has stated a prohibition on social media for under-15s, with the leader arguing that phones and networks are "taking away our children's innocence". A law could be formalized next year.
• Norway is set to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard children from the "influence of the algorithms".
• Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to authenticate the age and identity of social media participants. The media minister have suggested that an similar ban could be "one of the tools on the table".
• In Spain, the president has urged lawmakers to approve a proposal raising the minimum age for accessing social media to 16.
• In The French government, the head of state has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has suggested a similar move, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in the Netherlands has advised parents to prevent their youngsters from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has adopted a non-binding resolution demanding a ban for under-16s unless parental consent is provided. While it highlights of the "habit-forming" nature of these platforms, the step does not create binding law.

"A strong age barrier is a useful starting point," commented one MEP behind the resolution.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Approach

Across Britain, the government has not ruled out a potential ban, stating that "no measure is discarded" but stressing any decision must be "based on conclusive research".

Last year, support grew behind a proposal to enact restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end watered down. However, the administration pledged to further research the issue.

Advocacy groups have expressed warnings. An organization set up by the relatives of a teenager who died after viewing disturbing social media material argues that a strict age ban may not make platforms safer and could create a "cliff edge" of risk when users turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a answer to the failure of the tech sector to build products and services that are secure and suitable for children," stated a influential child protection advocate.

The United States: A Fragmented Landscape

In the United States, action is largely happening at the local level against a backdrop of country-wide gridlock.

• Utah demands parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has passed a bill prohibiting under-14s from joining social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has approved a rule limiting teenagers to one hour of social media time per day, with extra time needing adult consent.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have likewise enacted measures demanding parental consent for teenagers to set up social media accounts.

Even with cross-party agreement and calls from some politicians to copy the Australian example, a US-wide ban is right now seen as improbable.

Worldwide Outlook

Apart from these regions, additional nations are also taking action.

• The Malaysian government intends to prohibit social media for those under sixteen effective next year.
• Brazil has raised the minimum age for Instagram to 16.

However, international organizations take a more measured stance. Unicef has cautioned that age-based restrictions have downsides and "may even prove counterproductive". The organization notes that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for marginalized children and that bans should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to improve child safeguards.

Even as this worldwide debate continues, the policies of the Australian government and several other countries show that states globally are less and less prepared to stand by for the industry to self-regulate.