🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive action to ban social platforms access for those under 16 is creating waves internationally. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and families are watching with great interest to see if this tactic will set a precedent for the rest of the world.

Across Europe Movement

Across Europe, a increasing number of countries are considering comparable measures.

• Denmark has announced a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader arguing that mobile devices and platforms are "stealing our youngsters' youth". Legislation could be passed next year.
• The Norwegian government is set to implement a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to safeguard the young from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• The Irish government is working on a digital wallet to confirm the user details of social media account holders. Authorities have suggested that an Australia-style ban remains "one of the options in reserve".
• In The Spanish government, the prime minister has urged parliament to approve a law increasing the legal age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has suggested a comparable step, alongside an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has advised guardians to restrict their children from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the European parliament has passed a symbolic statement demanding a ban for minors without guardian approval is provided. Even though it warns of the "habit-forming" nature of these services, the resolution does not establish mandatory rules.

"A clear age barrier is a useful foundation," stated one MEP behind the resolution.

The United Kingdom: A Watchful Stance

For the United Kingdom, the government has remained open to a potential ban, emphasizing that "no measure is discarded" but stressing any action must be "grounded in robust research".

Previously, interest built behind a legislative effort to impose controls on social media use by minors, but it was in the end weakened. Instead, the government vowed to conduct more studies the topic.

Campaign organizations have raised warnings. A prominent charity established by the family of a teenager who took her own life after encountering disturbing platform posts contends that a strict age ban may not protect children and could create a "sudden drop-off" of harm when teens turn 16.

"This ban is a response to the refusal of the social media companies to design products and services that are secure and fit for minors," commented a leading peer.

The United States: A Decentralized Picture

Across America, regulation is primarily happening at the regional level amid country-wide gridlock.

• Utah mandates parental consent for minors to use social media and restricts overnight use.
• Florida has signed a bill banning those below 14 from accessing social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
• Virginia has passed a regulation limiting minors to a single hour of social media access per day, with extra use requiring parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly introduced bills requiring parental consent for under-16s to create social media accounts.

Even with cross-party agreement and calls from some individuals to mimic this lead, a nationwide ban is right now seen as improbable.

Global Outlook

Beyond the West, further nations are similarly considering moves.

• Malaysia plans to prohibit social media for under-16s effective next year.
• Brazil has lifted the access age for one major platform to 16.

But, world organizations take a more measured position. Unicef has warned that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "may even prove counterproductive". The organization points out that the internet can be a "critical link" for vulnerable young people and that bans should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to prioritize child safeguards.

As this global discussion unfolds, the steps of the Australian government and several other countries demonstrate that states internationally are no longer willing to stand by for tech companies to make changes on their own.