🔗 Share this article

The Australian controversial policy to restrict social platforms access for young people below 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Officials, safety advocates, and guardians are watching closely to see if this tactic will set a precedent for the rest of the world.

European Movement

Throughout Europe, a rising number of countries are considering comparable restrictions.

• Denmark has announced a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister arguing that phones and apps are "taking away our youngsters' childhood". The policy is expected to be passed next year.
• Norway is set to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to shield young people from the "power of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is working on a digital wallet to verify the age and identity of social media account holders. Officials have stated that an Australian-model ban remains "an measures on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the president has called on parliament to pass a law raising the legal age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a similar move, alongside an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in The Netherlands has urged families to restrict their children from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has adopted a advisory statement demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 except if guardian approval is provided. While it cautions of the "habit-forming" design of these apps, the move does not establish enforceable legislation.

"A clear age barrier is a solid foundation," said one European lawmaker driving the resolution.

The United Kingdom: A Cautious Eye

Across Britain, the leadership has not ruled out a possible ban, stating that "no measure is discarded" but stressing any policy must be "based on robust data".

Previously, support built behind a legislative effort to impose restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately weakened. Instead, the government pledged to investigate the topic.

Advocacy groups have voiced warnings. One foundation established by the family of a teenager who died after viewing disturbing platform posts suggests that a strict age ban could fail to protect children and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of risk when users become eligible.

"This ban is a reaction to the inability of the Silicon Valley to create products and services that are safe and fit for children," stated a leading child protection advocate.

America: A State-by-State Landscape

Stateside, regulation is primarily unfolding at the state level against a backdrop of federal stalemate.

• The state of Utah demands parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has passed a bill prohibiting children under fourteen from accessing social media, though it is entangled in court battles.
• The state of Virginia has enacted a regulation restricting teenagers to 60 minutes of social media access per day, with any further access dependent on parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise introduced measures mandating guardian approval for under-16s to open social media profiles.

Despite bipartisan support and suggestions from various politicians to mimic the Australian example, a nationwide ban is presently seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Outlook

Outside of these regions, other countries are likewise exploring options.

• Malaysia plans to restrict social media for under-16s beginning next year.
• Brazil has lifted the minimum age for Instagram to 16.

However, global organizations strike a more measured tone. A major UN agency has warned that social media bans have downsides and "might have unintended consequences". The agency highlights that the internet can be a "vital connection" for isolated youth and that government action should not be a "substitute" for social media firms to prioritize user protection.

Even as this international conversation unfolds, the actions of Australia and several other countries indicate that states internationally are no longer prepared to wait for tech companies to make changes on their own.