🔗 Share this article

The Australian bold policy to ban social media access for young people below 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Politicians, child protection groups, and families are monitoring with great interest to see if this approach will set a precedent for countries abroad.

Across Europe Trend

In Europe, a rising number of states are exploring similar bans.

• Denmark has announced a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the prime minister stating that smartphones and networks are "robbing our children's innocence". The policy could be enacted soon.
• Norway is preparing to implement a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to protect young people from the "influence of the algorithms".
• Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to authenticate the age and identity of social media users. Authorities have stated that an similar ban could be "an tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the prime minister has asked the legislature to enact a proposal lifting the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In The French government, the leader has proposed a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has endorsed a related action, alongside an overnight "internet blackout" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in The Dutch government has urged parents to prevent their children from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the EU parliament has adopted a advisory resolution supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 unless guardian approval is granted. While it warns of the "addictive" design of these services, the resolution does not enact enforceable legislation.

"A clear age barrier is a solid first step," commented one MEP supporting the initiative.

Britain: A Watchful Approach

Across Britain, the government has kept open a potential ban, emphasizing that "nothing is being dismissed" but maintaining any action must be "supported by strong research".

Earlier, support grew behind a legislative effort to introduce limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually modified. Nonetheless, the government pledged to conduct more studies the topic.

Campaign organizations have raised warnings. A prominent charity set up by the family of a young person who was lost after viewing disturbing online content contends that a strict age ban may not make platforms safer and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of risk when users become eligible.

"The Australian ban is a response to the inability of the social media companies to create products and services that are appropriate and fit for children," stated a influential peer.

America: A State-by-State Picture

Stateside, regulation is largely occurring at the local level amid federal stalemate.

• Utah demands guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• The state of Florida has enacted a bill barring those below 14 from joining social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• The state of Virginia has passed a rule capping teenagers to 60 minutes of social media time per day, with additional time requiring parental permission.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also passed bills mandating guardian approval for under-16s to create social media presences.

Despite widespread concern and calls from various politicians to follow Australia's lead, a nationwide ban is right now seen as improbable.

International Views

Beyond Europe and the US, other states are also taking action.

• The Malaysian government plans to prohibit social media for under-16s effective next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the access age for the platform Instagram to 16.

But, international organizations adopt a more cautious tone. A major UN agency has cautioned that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "could prove counterproductive". The agency notes that social networks can be a "critical link" for isolated youth and that government action should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to invest in user protection.

While this global debate evolves, the steps of Australia and others demonstrate that policymakers globally are no longer content to wait for platforms to act voluntarily.