🔗 Share this article

The Australian bold policy to prohibit social media access for those under 16 is creating waves internationally. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and families are watching intently to see if this tactic will become a template for countries abroad.

Across Europe Movement

Throughout Europe, a rising number of states are moving toward similar measures.

• Denmark has announced a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the PM arguing that smartphones and networks are "robbing our kids' youth". A law is expected to be passed next year.
• Norway is planning to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to shield children from the "power of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is developing a digital ID system to authenticate the age and identity of social media participants. The media minister have stated that an Australian-model ban is "one of the measures in reserve".
• In Spain, the president has called on parliament to pass a proposal lifting the legal age for joining social media to 16.
• In The French government, the leader has proposed a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has suggested a similar move, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The administration in The Netherlands has recommended families to block their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has approved a advisory resolution supporting a ban for under-16s except if a parent decides otherwise is granted. While it highlights of the "compulsive" quality of these services, the resolution does not enact enforceable legislation.

"A clear age restriction is a useful first step," commented one parliamentarian driving the initiative.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Approach

For the United Kingdom, the government has remained open to a possible ban, stating that "no option is off the table" but insisting any decision must be "supported by strong evidence".

Last year, support gathered behind a bill to impose limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end watered down. Nonetheless, the administration pledged to conduct more studies the issue.

Advocacy groups have expressed concerns. An organization set up by the loved ones of a young person who was lost after viewing dangerous social media material contends that a strict age ban might not improve online safety and could result in a "cliff edge" of risk when users turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a answer to the failure of the social media companies to build platforms and apps that are secure and age appropriate for minors," stated a leading online safety campaigner.

The US: A Decentralized Picture

Across America, regulation is mostly unfolding at the state level against a backdrop of country-wide gridlock.

• Utah mandates guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and limits late-night use.
• Florida has signed a law barring those below 14 from joining social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has passed a law capping under-16s to a single hour of social media time per day, with any further use needing a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have similarly introduced laws mandating adult authorization for under-16s to set up social media presences.

Despite widespread concern and suggestions from some figures to mimic the Australian path, a nationwide ban is right now seen as improbable.

International Outlook

Apart from the West, further nations are likewise taking action.

• Malaysia plans to prohibit social media for those under sixteen effective next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has increased the required age for Instagram to 16.

Yet, global bodies strike a more measured tone. Unicef has cautioned that social media bans have downsides and "could backfire". The organization highlights that the internet can be a "critical link" for vulnerable children and that regulation should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to invest in child safeguards.

Even as this worldwide conversation continues, the steps of this nation and others show that policymakers internationally are no longer content to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.