🔗 Share this article

The Australian bold policy to prohibit social media access for individuals under sixteen is sparking debate worldwide. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and families are observing closely to see if this strategy will become a template for the rest of the world.

European Trend

Across Europe, a rising group of nations are moving toward parallel restrictions.

• Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM declaring that mobile devices and apps are "robbing our youngsters' innocence". The policy could be enacted soon.
• Norway is preparing to implement a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to protect the young from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• The Irish government is introducing a online verification tool to confirm the user details of social media users. The media minister have stated that an similar ban is "an options in reserve".
• In Spain, the leader has asked lawmakers to enact a law raising the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In The French government, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has recommended a comparable move, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The government in the Netherlands has advised families to prevent their children from social media until 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has adopted a advisory resolution calling for a ban for under-16s except if parental consent is granted. Although it highlights of the "habit-forming" nature of these platforms, the step does not enact mandatory rules.

"A strong age restriction is a solid first step," commented the parliamentarian supporting the resolution.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Approach

Across Britain, the administration has not ruled out a possible ban, stating that "nothing is off the table" but maintaining any action must be "grounded in strong research".

Previously, momentum grew behind a legislative effort to introduce restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually watered down. However, the government committed to further research the matter.

Advocacy groups have expressed warnings. One foundation founded by the loved ones of a young person who was lost after encountering dangerous online content suggests that a simple age ban may not protect children and could create a "dangerous transition" of exposure when young people turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the failure of the social media companies to design products and services that are secure and fit for young users," stated a prominent child protection advocate.

America: A Fragmented Picture

Across America, legislation is primarily unfolding at the state level due to country-wide stalemate.

• Utah mandates adult approval for under-18s to use social media and restricts overnight use.
• Florida has enacted a measure banning children under fourteen from accessing social media, though it faces legal challenges.
• Virginia has passed a law restricting under-16s to one hour of social media use per day, with extra time needing a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have also passed measures requiring guardian approval for teenagers to create social media presences.

Despite widespread concern and suggestions from some politicians to follow this lead, a nationwide ban is right now seen as a distant prospect.

Global Views

Outside of these regions, further nations are also exploring options.

• Malaysia plans to prohibit social media for those under sixteen beginning next year.
• Brazil has increased the access age for Instagram to 16.

However, world bodies strike a more nuanced stance. The UN children's agency has advised that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "could have unintended consequences". The organization notes that the internet can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable young people and that bans should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to improve child safeguards.

Even as this international discussion unfolds, the actions of the Australian government and others show that policymakers internationally are no longer content to stand by for platforms to make changes on their own.