🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold policy to restrict social media access for individuals under sixteen is creating waves around the globe. Politicians, child protection groups, and guardians are observing intently to see if this strategy will inspire imitation for other nations.

Across Europe Momentum

Throughout Europe, a rising chorus of nations are exploring similar bans.

• The Danish government plans a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister declaring that mobile devices and platforms are "robbing our kids' childhood". A law could be passed soon.
• The Norwegian government is set to implement a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to shield the young from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• The Irish government is developing a digital wallet to verify the age and identity of social media participants. Officials have indicated that an Australian-model ban is "a potential measures on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the prime minister has urged the legislature to approve a law raising the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In The French government, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a comparable step, including an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has advised families to prevent their children from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has approved a non-binding motion demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 except if guardian approval is granted. Even though it warns of the "addictive" design of these services, the step does not enact enforceable legislation.

"An effective age limit is a solid foundation," commented the parliamentarian supporting the resolution.

The United Kingdom: A Cautious Stance

For the United Kingdom, the leadership has kept open a possible ban, emphasizing that "no measure is off the table" but maintaining any action must be "supported by robust research".

Last year, momentum gathered behind a legislative effort to introduce limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually modified. Instead, the administration committed to further research the issue.

Campaign organizations have raised warnings. One foundation established by the family of a girl who died after being exposed to dangerous platform posts suggests that a simple age ban may not make platforms safer and could lead to a "dangerous transition" of exposure when teens become eligible.

"The Australian ban is a answer to the failure of the Silicon Valley to build products and services that are appropriate and suitable for children," stated a influential online safety campaigner.

The US: A State-by-State Picture

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

• Utah requires parental consent for minors to use social media and controls late-night use.
• The state of Florida has passed a law barring those below 14 from accessing social media, though it is subject to court battles.
• Virginia has enacted a regulation capping minors to one hour of social media time per day, with extra time requiring parental permission.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise passed measures mandating parental consent for minors to set up social media profiles.

Despite widespread concern and suggestions from certain individuals to mimic this lead, a nationwide ban is currently seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Perspectives

Outside of the West, further nations are likewise considering moves.

• The Malaysian government plans to restrict social media for those under sixteen beginning next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the access age for Instagram to 16.

But, global bodies adopt a more nuanced position. Unicef has cautioned that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "could have unintended consequences". The organization notes that online platforms can be a "critical link" for marginalized children and that government action should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to improve user protection.

As this worldwide discussion evolves, the actions of the Australian government and several other countries demonstrate that governments internationally are less and less prepared to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.