The Australian bold move to restrict social platforms access for those under 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Politicians, safety advocates, and parents are monitoring intently to see if this strategy will set a precedent for countries abroad.
The European Momentum
In Europe, a rising group of states are moving toward comparable bans.
- The Danish government plans a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM declaring that mobile devices and apps are "taking away our youngsters' youth". The policy may be formalized in the coming year.
- The Norwegian government is preparing to enforce a access barrier of 15, citing the need to safeguard young people from the "power of the recommendation systems".
- Ireland is working on a digital ID system to verify the identity and age of social media users. Authorities have suggested that an Australian-model ban is "a potential options under consideration".
- In Spain, the leader has called on lawmakers to approve a bill increasing the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
- In France, the head of state has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has suggested a comparable step, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
- The authorities in The Dutch government has advised guardians to block their children from social media before 15.
At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has adopted a symbolic statement supporting a ban for under-16s unless guardian approval is provided. Even though it warns of the "addictive" quality of these services, the step does not create binding law.
"A clear age barrier is a useful foundation," said one parliamentarian behind the initiative.
The UK: An Evidence-Based Eye
In the UK, the leadership has not ruled out a future ban, arguing that "nothing is off the table" but stressing any decision must be "supported by robust data".
Earlier, momentum gathered behind a legislative effort to enact restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually modified. However, the government vowed to further research the matter.
Advocacy groups have raised warnings. A prominent charity founded by the relatives of a teenager who died after viewing disturbing social media material contends that a strict age ban may not improve online safety and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when young people become eligible.
"Australia's ban is a response to the failure of the social media companies to build products and services that are appropriate and age appropriate for young users," commented a prominent peer.
The US: A State-by-State Picture
Stateside, action is primarily occurring at the state government level against a backdrop of country-wide gridlock.
- The state of Utah demands guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and controls overnight use.
- Florida has signed a measure barring under-14s from joining social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
- The state of Virginia has enacted a law restricting under-16s to one hour of social media time per day, with additional use needing parental permission.
- Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have likewise passed bills demanding parental consent for under-16s to create social media profiles.
Even with widespread concern and suggestions from some individuals to follow this example, a federal ban is currently seen as unlikely.
Worldwide Outlook
Beyond the West, additional states are similarly taking action.
- The Malaysian government aims to restrict social media for under-16s beginning next year.
- The Brazilian authorities has increased the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.
However, world organizations strike a more measured tone. Unicef has advised that social media bans pose dangers and "might backfire". The agency highlights that the internet can be a "critical link" for vulnerable young people and that bans should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to prioritize user protection.
While this international conversation evolves, the actions of the Australian government and several other countries show that states internationally are less and less prepared to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.
