🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive action to prohibit social networking access for young people below 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Officials, safety advocates, and families are observing closely to see if this approach will inspire imitation for other nations.

Across Europe Trend

Across Europe, a growing group of countries are exploring parallel measures.

• The Danish government plans a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader arguing that mobile devices and platforms are "taking away our children's innocence". Legislation could be passed next year.
• Norway is planning to implement a minimum age limit of 15, pointing to the need to safeguard young people from the "power of the algorithms".
• Ireland is working on a online verification tool to confirm the age and identity of social media participants. Officials have suggested that an Australia-style ban remains "one of the tools in reserve".
• In The Spanish government, the prime minister has asked the legislature to approve a bill lifting the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In The French government, the head of state has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has recommended a comparable action, alongside an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Dutch government has advised parents to block their children from social media until 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has adopted a advisory resolution demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 except if guardian approval is granted. Even though it cautions of the "addictive" design of these apps, the step does not create mandatory rules.

"A clear age barrier is a good foundation," commented the MEP driving the measure.

Britain: A Cautious Eye

Across Britain, the leadership has remained open to a possible ban, arguing that "no option is being dismissed" but insisting any policy must be "supported by strong evidence".

Previously, support gathered behind a proposal to impose restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately watered down. Nonetheless, the administration committed to investigate the matter.

Campaign organizations have expressed concerns. An organization established by the family of a girl who was lost after viewing disturbing online content contends that a blanket age ban could fail to protect children and could create a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when teens turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a answer to the inability of the tech sector to build tools that are safe and suitable for minors," stated a prominent peer.

America: A Decentralized Picture

Across America, legislation is largely occurring at the state level amid federal inaction.

• Utah demands guardian permission for minors to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has passed a bill barring children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it faces court battles.
• Virginia has passed a regulation restricting minors to one hour of social media access per day, with any further time dependent on parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also passed laws demanding guardian approval for under-16s to open social media accounts.

Despite cross-party agreement and calls from certain individuals to copy Australia's example, a US-wide ban is right now seen as improbable.

Global Perspectives

Apart from these regions, other states are also exploring options.

• The Malaysian government plans to prohibit social media for those under sixteen starting from next year.
• Brazil has lifted the access age for one major platform to 16.

However, global organizations adopt a more nuanced stance. Unicef has warned that social media bans pose dangers and "may even prove counterproductive". The organization highlights that the internet can be a "lifeline" for vulnerable young people and that government action should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to improve child safeguards.

As this international conversation unfolds, the steps of Australia and several other countries indicate that states internationally are no longer prepared to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.