🔗 Share this article

The Australian decisive policy to restrict social media access for young people below 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and parents are watching with great interest to see if this approach will become a template for countries abroad.

Across Europe Movement

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

• The Danish government has stated a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the PM arguing that mobile devices and networks are "robbing our kids' innocence". The policy is expected to be passed in the coming year.
• Norway is planning to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, pointing to the need to safeguard the young from the "influence of the AI".
• Ireland is working on a digital wallet to verify the identity and age of social media participants. Authorities have stated that an Australia-style ban is "a potential measures on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the president has called on parliament to pass a proposal raising the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has suggested a similar action, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The administration in The Netherlands has urged families to restrict their kids from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has passed a non-binding statement supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 except if guardian approval is granted. Although it warns of the "addictive" quality of these services, the move does not establish enforceable legislation.

"An effective age limit is a good first step," said one European lawmaker supporting the initiative.

The UK: A Cautious Stance

In the UK, the administration has remained open to a future ban, emphasizing that "nothing is off the table" but stressing any decision must be "supported by strong research".

Last year, support grew behind a bill to impose limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately modified. Nonetheless, the government committed to conduct more studies the issue.

Campaign organizations have voiced warnings. An organization set up by the family of a girl who took her own life after viewing harmful platform posts contends that a blanket age ban might not protect children and could result in a "sudden drop-off" of risk when teens become eligible.

"Australia's ban is a response to the inability of the social media companies to create products and services that are secure and age appropriate for minors," said a influential online safety campaigner.

The US: A State-by-State Approach

Across America, regulation is primarily unfolding at the local level against a backdrop of national inaction.

• Utah demands parental consent for under-18s to use social media and restricts nighttime use.
• Florida has passed a bill prohibiting those below 14 from joining social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has approved a law capping teenagers to one hour of social media use per day, with additional use dependent on a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise passed measures mandating adult authorization for teenagers to open social media presences.

Despite widespread concern and proposals from various individuals to mimic this lead, a nationwide ban is currently seen as unlikely.

International Views

Beyond the West, additional countries are likewise considering moves.

• Malaysia aims to restrict social media for under-16s beginning next year.
• Brazil has increased the required age for Instagram to 16.

Yet, world bodies strike a more nuanced position. The UN children's agency has advised that social media bans have downsides and "could backfire". The body points out that the internet can be a "critical link" for vulnerable youth and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for social media firms to invest in child safeguards.

Even as this worldwide debate unfolds, the actions of the Australian government and others indicate that policymakers internationally are less and less willing to delay for tech companies to act voluntarily.