🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial policy to restrict social media access for those under 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Politicians, safety advocates, and guardians are observing closely to see if this tactic will set a precedent for other nations.

Across Europe Movement

Throughout Europe, a growing number of states are considering similar measures.

• Denmark has announced a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister stating that phones and networks are "taking away our children's youth". Legislation could be enacted in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is planning to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to shield young people from the "power of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is developing a digital wallet to verify the age and identity of social media participants. Authorities have suggested that an Australia-style ban remains "an measures in reserve".
• In Spain, the leader has urged parliament to approve a law raising the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has floated the idea of a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has suggested a comparable move, alongside an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The administration in The Netherlands has urged families to restrict their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has passed a advisory statement demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 except if parental consent is provided. While it cautions of the "habit-forming" design of these apps, the move does not establish enforceable legislation.

"An effective age limit is a good first step," said one MEP behind the measure.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Stance

For the United Kingdom, the administration has kept open a potential ban, emphasizing that "nothing is off the table" but insisting any policy must be "supported by robust research".

Earlier, interest built behind a legislative effort to enact limits on social media use by minors, but it was in the end weakened. Instead, the administration committed to investigate the matter.

Campaign organizations have voiced concerns. An organization founded by the relatives of a young person who died after being exposed to dangerous online content contends that a strict age ban might not protect children and could result in a "cliff edge" of exposure when teens reach the legal age.

"This ban is a reaction to the failure of the social media companies to create products and services that are appropriate and fit for children," said a influential online safety campaigner.

America: A State-by-State Approach

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

• Utah mandates parental consent for under-18s to use social media and limits late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a law prohibiting children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has enacted a law capping minors to one hour of social media time per day, with any further use requiring a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also enacted laws mandating parental consent for under-16s to set up social media presences.

Despite cross-party agreement and calls from various politicians to follow the Australian example, a federal ban is presently seen as improbable.

Worldwide Views

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

• The Malaysian government plans to restrict social media for teenagers effective next year.
• Brazil has raised the required age for one major platform to 16.

But, world organizations adopt a more nuanced position. Unicef has warned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "may even have unintended consequences". The agency notes that the internet can be a "lifeline" for isolated youth and that bans should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to invest in safety.

While this global conversation evolves, the steps of Australia and its followers show that governments internationally are less and less prepared to stand by for the industry to make changes on their own.