🔗 Share this article

The Australian controversial move to prohibit social media access for young people below 16 is sending ripples around the globe. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and parents are observing with great interest to see if this strategy will become a template for countries abroad.

European Movement

In Europe, a growing chorus of nations are exploring parallel bans.

• Denmark has announced a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM declaring that mobile devices and apps are "taking away our children's childhood". A law is expected to be passed next year.
• Norway is planning to introduce a age restriction of 15, pointing to the need to shield children from the "power of the algorithms".
• Ireland is working on a digital wallet to confirm the identity and age of social media users. Authorities have indicated that an similar ban is "one of the measures on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the prime minister has urged the legislature to approve a law raising the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the president has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has recommended a comparable step, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The government in The Dutch government has urged parents to block their children from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has passed a advisory resolution calling for a ban for under-16s without parental consent is granted. Although it highlights of the "addictive" design of these apps, the resolution does not establish enforceable legislation.

"An effective age restriction is a useful starting point," commented a leading European lawmaker driving the initiative.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Stance

For the United Kingdom, the administration has kept open a possible ban, arguing that "no option is discarded" but insisting any action must be "supported by robust research".

Earlier, momentum built behind a legislative effort to enact controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately weakened. Instead, the government vowed to further research the topic.

Charities have voiced concerns. An organization established by the loved ones of a girl who died after encountering dangerous platform posts suggests that a blanket age ban might not make platforms safer and could create a "cliff edge" of harm when teens turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the refusal of the Silicon Valley to build tools that are safe and suitable for minors," stated a influential peer.

The US: A State-by-State Approach

Stateside, legislation is primarily occurring at the regional government level amid federal inaction.

• The state of Utah demands parental consent for minors to use social media and controls late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a bill barring under-14s from creating accounts on social media, though it faces court battles.
• Virginia has approved a regulation limiting under-16s to a single hour of social media access per day, with any further time needing a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly introduced laws requiring parental consent for minors to open social media accounts.

Even with widespread concern and proposals from some individuals to mimic Australia's path, a US-wide ban is right now seen as improbable.

Worldwide Outlook

Beyond these regions, further countries are similarly considering moves.

• The Malaysian government intends to prohibit social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• Brazil has lifted the access age for Instagram to 16.

However, international bodies adopt a more nuanced tone. A major UN agency has warned that age-based restrictions carry risks and "may even prove counterproductive". The agency notes that online platforms can be a "critical link" for isolated children and that bans should not be a "excuse" for social media firms to prioritize user protection.

Even as this worldwide discussion unfolds, the actions of the Australian government and its followers show that states globally are less and less willing to stand by for the industry to act voluntarily.