🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold policy to restrict social platforms access for young people below 16 is creating waves around the globe. Politicians, safety advocates, and families are monitoring intently to see if this strategy will become a template for other nations.

European Momentum

Across Europe, a increasing group of states are exploring similar measures.

• Denmark plans a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the prime minister arguing that phones and platforms are "robbing our kids' youth". The policy is expected to be formalized in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is planning to implement a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to shield the young from the "manipulative force of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is introducing a online verification tool to authenticate the age and identity of social media participants. Authorities have stated that an Australian-model ban could be "one of the tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the leader has called on the legislature to pass a law raising the minimum age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has endorsed a related move, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The government in The Netherlands has advised parents to prevent their youngsters from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has adopted a advisory motion supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 without guardian approval is provided. Although it warns of the "habit-forming" design of these platforms, the step does not enact binding law.

"A clear age restriction is a solid starting point," said a leading MEP supporting the resolution.

Britain: A Cautious Eye

For the United Kingdom, the administration has not ruled out a potential ban, emphasizing that "no measure is off the table" but maintaining any decision must be "supported by strong data".

Earlier, interest built behind a proposal to impose controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end modified. However, the administration committed to further research the matter.

Charities have voiced concerns. A prominent charity founded by the family of a young person who died after being exposed to dangerous online content argues that a blanket age ban could fail to protect children and could create a "cliff edge" of risk when users reach the legal age.

"This ban is a response to the failure of the Silicon Valley to build products and services that are secure and suitable for young users," stated a leading child protection advocate.

America: A State-by-State Approach

In the United States, action is mostly happening at the state government level amid national stalemate.

• Utah demands parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and limits overnight use.
• Florida has enacted a law prohibiting those below 14 from accessing social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has enacted a law restricting minors to one hour of social media time per day, with any further use dependent on a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also enacted bills mandating adult authorization for minors to create social media accounts.

Despite widespread concern and calls from certain politicians to follow this path, a US-wide ban is presently seen as unlikely.

International Outlook

Apart from Europe and the US, additional countries are similarly taking action.

• Malaysia plans to restrict social media for those under sixteen effective next year.
• Brazil has lifted the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

Yet, international agencies strike a more cautious position. The UN children's agency has warned that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "might backfire". The agency points out that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable youth and that bans should not be a "excuse" for social media firms to prioritize user protection.

As this global conversation evolves, the steps of this nation and its followers indicate that governments internationally are less and less content to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.