🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial action to ban social networking access for individuals under sixteen is sparking debate worldwide. Lawmakers, campaigners, and guardians are monitoring with great interest to see if this tactic will inspire imitation for the rest of the world.

Across Europe Movement

Across Europe, a growing number of countries are exploring similar restrictions.

• Denmark plans a prohibition on social media for under-15s, with the leader arguing that mobile devices and platforms are "robbing our kids' innocence". The policy may be enacted next year.
• Norway is planning to introduce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to protect the young from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• The Irish government is developing a online verification tool to verify the age and identity of social media participants. The media minister have stated that an Australian-model ban could be "a potential tools on the table".
• In Spain, the president has asked lawmakers to enact a bill raising the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has endorsed a comparable step, alongside an overnight "screen time restriction" for older teenagers.
• The administration in the Netherlands has recommended families to block their kids from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has adopted a non-binding motion supporting a ban for under-16s except if parental consent is given. Even though it highlights of the "addictive" quality of these services, the resolution does not create enforceable legislation.

"An effective age barrier is a solid foundation," stated one MEP behind the initiative.

The United Kingdom: A Watchful Approach

In the UK, the administration has kept open a potential ban, arguing that "no measure is discarded" but insisting any policy must be "based on conclusive research".

Last year, interest built behind a bill to introduce controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end modified. Nonetheless, the administration committed to conduct more studies the matter.

Charities have voiced concerns. An organization established by the family of a teenager who took her own life after encountering disturbing online content suggests that a strict age ban might not protect children and could create a "cliff edge" of risk when users become eligible.

"This ban is a response to the failure of the tech sector to design tools that are safe and suitable for children," commented a influential peer.

The United States: A Decentralized Approach

In the United States, legislation is mostly occurring at the regional level amid federal inaction.

• Utah mandates adult approval for minors to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• Florida has passed a bill prohibiting children under fourteen from joining social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has passed a regulation limiting under-16s to one hour of social media access per day, with any further time requiring a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have likewise passed measures requiring guardian approval for teenagers to create social media accounts.

Despite widespread concern and proposals from certain figures to copy Australia's example, a nationwide ban is right now seen as improbable.

Global Views

Apart from these regions, further nations are also taking action.

• The Malaysian government intends to prohibit social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the minimum age for one major platform to 16.

But, international bodies strike a more measured tone. Unicef has warned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "could have unintended consequences". The organization points out that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for isolated young people and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to improve user protection.

While this worldwide conversation continues, the steps of the Australian government and others demonstrate that policymakers internationally are no longer willing to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.