🔗 Share this article

The Australian bold action to prohibit social networking access for young people below 16 is sparking debate internationally. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and guardians are monitoring with great interest to see if this strategy will set a precedent for other nations.

European Movement

Across Europe, a rising chorus of nations are exploring comparable bans.

• Denmark has announced a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the PM arguing that smartphones and platforms are "taking away our youngsters' childhood". The policy could be formalized next year.
• The Norwegian government is set to introduce a age restriction of 15, citing the need to shield the young from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is introducing a digital ID system to confirm the age and identity of social media account holders. Authorities have indicated that an Australia-style ban could be "a potential tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the leader has urged the legislature to pass a law increasing the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has recommended a similar step, including an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The administration in The Dutch government has recommended families to prevent their kids from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has passed a non-binding statement demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 unless a parent decides otherwise is provided. While it cautions of the "compulsive" quality of these platforms, the step does not enact binding law.

"A strong age restriction is a solid starting point," commented the MEP supporting the measure.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Stance

For the United Kingdom, the government has remained open to a potential ban, arguing that "no option is off the table" but insisting any decision must be "based on conclusive data".

Earlier, momentum grew behind a proposal to impose limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end modified. Instead, the administration vowed to investigate the matter.

Charities have voiced apprehensions. An organization founded by the relatives of a teenager who took her own life after encountering harmful platform posts contends that a simple age ban could fail to protect children and could result in a "cliff edge" of exposure when users turn 16.

"This ban is a response to the failure of the social media companies to create products and services that are appropriate and age appropriate for young users," said a influential child protection advocate.

The United States: A State-by-State Landscape

Across America, action is primarily happening at the local level amid federal gridlock.

• Utah mandates adult approval for those under 18 to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has enacted a law barring children under fourteen from accessing social media, though it faces legal challenges.
• Virginia has enacted a rule capping minors to one hour of social media time per day, with additional access dependent on adult consent.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise passed measures mandating parental consent for minors to open social media presences.

Even with widespread concern and suggestions from some individuals to copy Australia's path, a US-wide ban is presently seen as improbable.

International Views

Apart from Europe and the US, further nations are also considering moves.

• The Malaysian government plans to ban social media for teenagers effective next year.
• Brazil has lifted the access age for the platform Instagram to 16.

Yet, world bodies take a more cautious tone. A major UN agency has advised that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "may even backfire". The body notes that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for isolated youth and that government action should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to improve child safeguards.

Even as this worldwide conversation unfolds, the steps of Australia and others indicate that states internationally are less and less content to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.