🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold action to ban social platforms access for those under 16 is creating waves around the globe. Lawmakers, campaigners, and guardians are watching closely to see if this strategy will become a template for countries abroad.

The European Momentum

Across Europe, a growing group of states are exploring parallel measures.

• Denmark has stated a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM arguing that phones and platforms are "robbing our kids' childhood". A law could be enacted in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is set to implement a access barrier of 15, citing the need to protect young people from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• Ireland is introducing a digital ID system to verify the identity and age of social media account holders. Authorities have suggested that an Australia-style ban remains "an measures on the table".
• In Spain, the leader has asked parliament to approve a proposal raising the legal age for accessing 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 endorsed a comparable step, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The government in The Netherlands has urged families to block their kids from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the European parliament has approved a non-binding resolution supporting a ban for minors unless guardian approval is given. Although it warns of the "addictive" quality of these platforms, the move does not create binding law.

"A strong age barrier is a solid foundation," commented the European lawmaker behind the initiative.

Britain: A Watchful Eye

For the United Kingdom, the government has not ruled out a possible ban, stating that "no measure is discarded" but stressing any policy must be "grounded in robust data".

Earlier, support gathered behind a proposal to impose controls on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end watered down. Nonetheless, the administration committed to further research the topic.

Charities have raised concerns. One foundation established by the loved ones of a girl who was lost after encountering harmful platform posts contends that a simple age ban might not protect children and could result in a "dangerous transition" of risk when young people become eligible.

"This ban is a response to the failure of the tech sector to build products and services that are appropriate and suitable for children," said a prominent peer.

The United States: A Decentralized Landscape

In the United States, action is mostly happening at the regional government level against a backdrop of national inaction.

• Utah mandates parental consent for minors to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has enacted a law banning children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it faces court battles.
• Virginia has passed a regulation limiting under-16s to a single hour of social media access per day, with any further time requiring a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly introduced measures mandating parental consent for teenagers to set up social media accounts.

Even with widespread concern and proposals from certain figures to follow this path, a US-wide ban is currently seen as improbable.

International Outlook

Apart from the West, additional countries are likewise taking action.

• Malaysia intends to prohibit social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the access age for Instagram to 16.

However, international bodies strike a more measured position. The UN children's agency has advised that social media bans pose dangers and "could have unintended consequences". The organization notes that social networks can be a "critical link" for vulnerable youth and that government action should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to invest in child safeguards.

While this global debate unfolds, the steps of the Australian government and others demonstrate that governments internationally are less and less content to delay for platforms to act voluntarily.