🔗 Share this article

Australia's decisive move to prohibit social platforms access for individuals under sixteen is sending ripples around the globe. Politicians, campaigners, and guardians are observing intently to see if this strategy will set a precedent for other nations.

Across Europe Momentum

Throughout Europe, a growing group of countries are exploring comparable measures.

• Denmark plans a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister declaring that smartphones and networks are "taking away our youngsters' youth". A law is expected to be enacted next year.
• Norway is preparing to introduce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to safeguard young people from the "power of the AI".
• Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to confirm the age and identity of social media account holders. Officials have suggested that an similar ban could be "a potential tools under consideration".
• In Spain, the president has asked parliament to pass a proposal increasing the legal age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has recommended a comparable step, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The administration in The Dutch government has recommended families to restrict their children from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the bloc's legislature has passed a symbolic statement demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 without a parent decides otherwise is given. Even though it warns of the "addictive" quality of these platforms, the move does not establish mandatory rules.

"An effective age barrier is a solid first step," stated the MEP driving the measure.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Approach

In the UK, the leadership has kept open a potential ban, emphasizing that "no measure is off the table" but maintaining any decision must be "supported by robust evidence".

Earlier, momentum built behind a legislative effort to introduce limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually watered down. Nonetheless, the administration committed to investigate the topic.

Campaign organizations have expressed warnings. An organization set up by the family of a girl who took her own life after viewing dangerous platform posts argues that a simple age ban may not improve online safety and could result in a "dangerous transition" of risk when users turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a answer to the failure of the social media companies to build tools that are safe and fit for young users," stated a prominent peer.

America: A State-by-State Approach

In the United States, legislation is mostly happening at the regional level due to country-wide gridlock.

• Utah requires guardian permission for minors to use social media and restricts overnight use.
• Florida has enacted a bill barring under-14s from creating accounts on social media, though it faces court battles.
• The state of Virginia has approved a regulation restricting teenagers to one hour of social media time per day, with additional access dependent on parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly introduced measures demanding guardian approval for under-16s to open social media presences.

Even with cross-party agreement and proposals from some politicians to copy Australia's example, a US-wide ban is right now seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Outlook

Apart from these regions, other nations are similarly exploring options.

• Malaysia aims to restrict social media for those under sixteen starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has increased the access age for Instagram to 16.

However, world agencies strike a more nuanced stance. The UN children's agency has advised that age-based restrictions carry risks and "might prove counterproductive". The body highlights that social networks can be a "critical link" for vulnerable youth and that bans should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to improve safety.

While this global conversation evolves, the policies of the Australian government and its followers demonstrate that policymakers internationally are no longer prepared to stand by for the industry to act voluntarily.