🔗 Share this article

Australia's decisive action to ban social networking access for young people below 16 is sending ripples internationally. Politicians, safety advocates, and families are observing intently to see if this strategy will set a precedent for other nations.

The European Trend

Across Europe, a growing chorus of nations are moving toward similar restrictions.

• Denmark has announced a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the PM stating that phones and platforms are "stealing our youngsters' youth". A law could be enacted in the coming year.
• Norway is set to enforce a access barrier of 15, citing the need to protect young people from the "power of the AI".
• Ireland is working on a online verification tool to confirm the age and identity of social media participants. Authorities have stated that an Australia-style ban could be "an measures in reserve".
• In Spain, the president has asked the legislature to approve a proposal raising the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has endorsed a similar action, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for older teenagers.
• The government in The Netherlands has urged guardians to block their kids from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the bloc's legislature has approved a non-binding statement calling for a ban for minors except if guardian approval is provided. Even though it warns of the "habit-forming" quality of these apps, the move does not establish mandatory rules.

"A clear age limit is a solid first step," commented the parliamentarian behind the measure.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Stance

In the UK, the government has kept open a future ban, arguing that "no measure is discarded" but insisting any policy must be "supported by strong data".

Last year, interest grew behind a proposal to impose controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually weakened. Nonetheless, the administration pledged to further research the matter.

Charities have expressed concerns. One foundation established by the loved ones of a young person who died after being exposed to disturbing social media material contends that a blanket age ban may not improve online safety and could create a "cliff edge" of exposure when young people become eligible.

"This ban is a reaction to the refusal of the tech sector to design platforms and apps that are safe and fit for children," commented a prominent peer.

The United States: A Fragmented Approach

Stateside, regulation is primarily occurring at the regional government level amid country-wide gridlock.

• The state of Utah demands guardian permission for minors to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• Florida has passed a law banning those below 14 from creating accounts on social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has passed a rule limiting teenagers to a single hour of social media use per day, with any further time needing adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have also passed bills demanding parental consent for under-16s to set up social media presences.

Even with bipartisan support and calls from certain politicians to follow this path, a federal ban is right now seen as a distant prospect.

Global Outlook

Beyond the West, additional states are also taking action.

• The Malaysian government aims to restrict social media for teenagers effective next year.
• Brazil has lifted the access age for one major platform to 16.

But, global organizations take a more nuanced stance. Unicef has cautioned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "may even prove counterproductive". The body points out that the internet can be a "critical link" for vulnerable youth and that bans should not be a "excuse" for platform operators to improve safety.

As this worldwide debate continues, the policies of this nation and others show that governments around the world are less and less content to stand by for tech companies to make changes on their own.