🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold move to ban social media access for those under 16 is creating waves worldwide. Politicians, child protection groups, and parents are monitoring intently to see if this strategy will set a precedent for other nations.

Across Europe Trend

Throughout Europe, a growing group of nations are considering comparable bans.

• The Danish government has announced a prohibition on social media for under-15s, with the prime minister stating that phones and platforms are "robbing our youngsters' youth". Legislation could be formalized in the coming year.
• Norway is preparing to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to shield children from the "power of the algorithms".
• Ireland is working on a online verification tool to confirm the identity and age of social media account holders. Officials have indicated that an similar ban is "a potential options in reserve".
• In Spain, the leader has called on parliament to pass a proposal increasing the minimum age for accessing social media to 16.
• In The French government, the leader has proposed a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has suggested a comparable step, including an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The administration in The Dutch government has recommended guardians to restrict their children from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has adopted a symbolic motion supporting a ban for under-16s unless a parent decides otherwise is given. Even though it cautions of the "habit-forming" design of these platforms, the step does not create binding law.

"A clear age restriction is a good foundation," said a leading parliamentarian supporting the measure.

The UK: A Watchful Stance

Across Britain, the administration has not ruled out a possible ban, arguing that "no measure is discarded" but insisting any policy must be "based on conclusive data".

Last year, momentum gathered behind a proposal to introduce controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end watered down. However, the government vowed to conduct more studies the issue.

Charities have raised warnings. An organization set up by the loved ones of a teenager who was lost after viewing disturbing platform posts suggests that a strict age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could create a "cliff edge" of risk when young people turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the inability of the social media companies to build products and services that are secure and fit for young users," commented a influential online safety campaigner.

The US: A Decentralized Landscape

Stateside, legislation is mostly occurring at the local government level against a backdrop of federal gridlock.

• Utah demands guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has passed a measure barring those below 14 from creating accounts on social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has passed a regulation capping under-16s to one hour of social media access per day, with extra time requiring a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have similarly passed bills requiring guardian approval for teenagers to open social media accounts.

Even with bipartisan support and proposals from certain figures to copy the Australian path, a nationwide ban is right now seen as a distant prospect.

Global Outlook

Apart from Europe and the US, other nations are likewise exploring options.

• Malaysia plans to ban social media for under-16s beginning next year.
• Brazil has raised the minimum age for Instagram to 16.

But, global bodies take a more nuanced stance. Unicef has cautioned that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "may even prove counterproductive". The body points out that online platforms can be a "critical link" for isolated youth and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for social media firms to invest in safety.

While this international debate continues, the steps of Australia and its followers demonstrate that policymakers internationally are increasingly willing to delay for platforms to make changes on their own.