🔗 Share this article

Australia's decisive action to prohibit social networking access for young people below 16 is creating waves worldwide. Officials, child protection groups, and parents are monitoring intently to see if this tactic will set a precedent for the rest of the world.

European Trend

In Europe, a rising number of countries are considering parallel restrictions.

• The Danish government has stated a ban on social media for under-15s, with the leader declaring that smartphones and apps are "robbing our children's innocence". Legislation is expected to be enacted soon.
• The Norwegian government is preparing to implement a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to shield children from the "influence of the algorithms".
• Ireland is introducing a digital ID system to confirm the age and identity of social media users. Authorities have suggested that an Australian-model ban remains "a potential tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the president has called on parliament to enact a bill lifting the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has suggested a similar action, alongside an overnight "screen time restriction" for older teenagers.
• The administration in the Netherlands has advised guardians to block their youngsters from social media until 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has approved a advisory motion calling for a ban for minors without parental consent is granted. While it cautions of the "addictive" design of these platforms, the resolution does not create enforceable legislation.

"A clear age barrier is a good foundation," commented a leading MEP supporting the initiative.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Stance

In the UK, the leadership has remained open to a potential ban, emphasizing that "no option is discarded" but insisting any action must be "supported by conclusive evidence".

Last year, interest grew behind a legislative effort to enact controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually weakened. Instead, the government vowed to further research the topic.

Campaign organizations have voiced apprehensions. One foundation founded by the family of a young person who was lost after being exposed to harmful platform posts suggests that a blanket age ban might not make platforms safer and could create a "cliff edge" of risk when teens reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the refusal of the social media companies to create products and services that are secure and age appropriate for young users," stated a leading child protection advocate.

The US: A State-by-State Approach

Stateside, action is primarily happening at the state level against a backdrop of federal inaction.

• Utah requires guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has signed a bill prohibiting children under fourteen from joining social media, though it faces court battles.
• Virginia has passed a rule limiting teenagers to a single hour of social media time per day, with additional use requiring adult consent.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly passed measures mandating parental consent for minors to set up social media profiles.

Even with bipartisan support and proposals from various individuals to copy Australia's lead, a nationwide ban is right now seen as a distant prospect.

International Perspectives

Outside of the West, additional states are also exploring options.

• Malaysia aims to prohibit social media for those under sixteen effective next year.
• Brazil has raised the required age for one major platform to 16.

However, international agencies take a more measured tone. The UN children's agency has advised that age-based restrictions pose dangers and "may even backfire". The agency highlights that online platforms can be a "critical link" for marginalized youth and that regulation should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to improve safety.

While this international conversation unfolds, the policies of Australia and its followers show that policymakers globally are less and less prepared to delay for platforms to act voluntarily.