🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial policy to restrict social networking access for young people below 16 is sparking debate internationally. Officials, child protection groups, and guardians are watching closely to see if this tactic will set a precedent for other nations.

The European Momentum

In Europe, a rising number of countries are moving toward comparable restrictions.

• The Danish government has announced a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister stating that phones and apps are "stealing our kids' youth". Legislation may be passed in the coming year.
• Norway is set to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, pointing to the need to shield the young from the "manipulative force of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is working on a digital ID system to authenticate the age and identity of social media participants. The media minister have stated that an similar ban is "an measures in reserve".
• In Spain, the president has asked lawmakers to pass a bill increasing the access age for using social media to 16.
• In The French government, the president has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has recommended a similar move, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for older teenagers.
• The government in The Dutch government has advised families to block their kids from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has approved a advisory motion supporting a ban for minors except if guardian approval is granted. Although it highlights of the "compulsive" quality of these services, the step does not create mandatory rules.

"A strong age restriction is a solid starting point," stated a leading MEP behind the initiative.

The United Kingdom: A Cautious Eye

For the United Kingdom, the administration has not ruled out a potential ban, arguing that "no measure is discarded" but maintaining any policy must be "grounded in robust data".

Previously, support built behind a proposal to enact controls on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually modified. Nonetheless, the administration pledged to conduct more studies the issue.

Charities have expressed warnings. A prominent charity founded by the loved ones of a teenager who died after encountering harmful social media material argues that a strict age ban may not make platforms safer and could create a "sudden drop-off" of harm when young people turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a reaction to the failure of the social media companies to design tools that are safe and age appropriate for children," said a influential child protection advocate.

America: A State-by-State Approach

In the United States, legislation is primarily occurring at the regional level amid country-wide gridlock.

• Utah demands adult approval for those under 18 to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has passed a bill barring under-14s from accessing social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
• The state of Virginia has passed a regulation restricting under-16s to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with additional time dependent on a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly passed laws mandating guardian approval for teenagers to open social media profiles.

Even with cross-party agreement and suggestions from certain individuals to copy the Australian lead, a US-wide ban is presently seen as improbable.

Worldwide Perspectives

Outside of Europe and the US, other states are likewise considering moves.

• The Malaysian government plans to ban social media for under-16s beginning next year.
• Brazil has increased the access age for Instagram to 16.

However, global agencies adopt a more cautious position. The UN children's agency has warned that social media bans pose dangers and "might prove counterproductive". The body notes that online platforms can be a "critical link" for marginalized children and that government action should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to prioritize safety.

Even as this global discussion continues, the steps of the Australian government and several other countries demonstrate that governments globally are less and less content to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.