🔗 Share this article

Australia's decisive policy to restrict social media access for young people below 16 is creating waves around the globe. Politicians, campaigners, and guardians are observing closely to see if this tactic will become a template for countries abroad.

Across Europe Trend

In Europe, a growing number of states are exploring parallel restrictions.

• The Danish government has announced a ban on social media for under-15s, with the leader arguing that mobile devices and apps are "stealing our youngsters' youth". The policy could be passed next year.
• Norway is preparing to introduce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to shield the young from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• Ireland is developing a online verification tool to authenticate the age and identity of social media account holders. The media minister have indicated that an Australia-style ban remains "a potential measures in reserve".
• In Spain, the president has called on lawmakers to enact a proposal increasing the minimum age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a similar move, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in The Dutch government has urged guardians to prevent their children from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has adopted a advisory statement demanding a ban for minors unless parental consent is provided. Although it highlights of the "addictive" nature of these platforms, the step does not create mandatory rules.

"An effective age restriction is a useful starting point," stated a leading MEP supporting the resolution.

Britain: A Watchful Stance

In the UK, the leadership has kept open a future ban, stating that "no option is discarded" but insisting any decision must be "supported by robust data".

Last year, support built behind a bill to impose controls on social media use by minors, but it was eventually weakened. However, the administration pledged to further research the matter.

Campaign organizations have raised warnings. An organization set up by the relatives of a teenager who died after encountering harmful online content argues that a simple age ban might not make platforms safer and could result in a "sudden drop-off" of risk when young people reach the legal age.

"This ban is a answer to the inability of the social media companies to create products and services that are secure and fit for children," commented a leading child protection advocate.

The United States: A Decentralized Picture

In the United States, action is primarily occurring at the local level due to country-wide inaction.

• Utah mandates adult approval for under-18s to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a measure barring under-14s from creating accounts on social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has approved a law limiting teenagers to a single hour of social media time per day, with extra time dependent on adult consent.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly enacted laws demanding adult authorization for minors to set up social media accounts.

Even with cross-party agreement and calls from some individuals to mimic this example, a nationwide ban is presently seen as improbable.

International Perspectives

Outside of the West, other countries are likewise exploring options.

• Malaysia aims to prohibit social media for under-16s beginning next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the access age for one major platform to 16.

However, world agencies take a more cautious tone. Unicef has warned that social media bans pose dangers and "may even have unintended consequences". The organization highlights that the internet can be a "critical link" for isolated children and that bans should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to prioritize child safeguards.

As this global debate evolves, the policies of the Australian government and others demonstrate that states internationally are no longer content to delay for platforms to make changes on their own.