🔗 Share this article

The Australian bold policy to restrict social networking access for individuals under sixteen is creating waves worldwide. Lawmakers, campaigners, and parents are watching with great interest to see if this strategy will become a template for the rest of the world.

European Movement

Across Europe, a increasing group of nations are exploring parallel measures.

• The Danish government has stated a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader arguing that phones and platforms are "stealing our children's innocence". A law may be passed next year.
• The Norwegian government is preparing to enforce a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard children from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is developing a digital ID system to verify the identity and age of social media account holders. Authorities have suggested that an Australian-model ban remains "a potential options under consideration".
• In Spain, the president has asked parliament to enact a proposal lifting the legal age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the president has proposed a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a related step, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The administration in the Netherlands has recommended parents to restrict their children from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the bloc's legislature has adopted a advisory statement demanding a ban for under-16s unless a parent decides otherwise is granted. Even though it cautions of the "addictive" quality of these platforms, the step does not create binding law.

"A strong age restriction is a solid first step," stated a leading MEP supporting the initiative.

Britain: A Cautious Stance

Across Britain, the administration has not ruled out a potential ban, stating that "nothing is discarded" but stressing any policy must be "grounded in conclusive data".

Previously, momentum built behind a proposal to enact limits on social media use by minors, but it was eventually watered down. Nonetheless, the administration pledged to conduct more studies the matter.

Charities have voiced concerns. A prominent charity founded by the relatives of a girl who took her own life after viewing harmful online content contends that a blanket age ban might not make platforms safer and could result in a "sudden drop-off" of risk when users become eligible.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the inability of the tech sector to create products and services that are safe and suitable for minors," stated a influential child protection advocate.

The US: A Decentralized Landscape

In the United States, action is largely occurring at the state level amid federal stalemate.

• Utah mandates guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and restricts nighttime use.
• Florida has passed a bill barring children under fourteen from accessing social media, though it is subject to court battles.
• Virginia has approved 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 also enacted laws mandating adult authorization for under-16s to open social media presences.

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

International Views

Apart from these regions, other countries are also taking action.

• Malaysia aims to ban social media for teenagers starting from next year.
• Brazil has raised the required age for one major platform to 16.

Yet, international bodies take a more measured stance. Unicef has cautioned that age-based restrictions have downsides and "could backfire". The body notes that social networks can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable youth and that government action should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to prioritize child safeguards.

As this global conversation evolves, the actions of this nation and several other countries show that states globally are less and less willing to delay for tech companies to act voluntarily.