🔗 Share this article

The Australian controversial move to restrict social media access for young people below 16 is sending ripples around the globe. Officials, campaigners, and guardians are observing closely to see if this approach will become a template for countries abroad.

The European Trend

In Europe, a growing group of states are moving toward similar restrictions.

• Denmark has stated a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister arguing that phones and platforms are "robbing our kids' youth". A law could be formalized soon.
• Norway is planning to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, pointing to the need to shield children from the "power of the algorithms".
• The Irish government is working on a online verification tool to verify the age and identity of social media users. The media minister have indicated that an similar ban is "one of the tools on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the leader has asked lawmakers to approve a bill increasing the legal age for joining social media to 16.
• In The French government, the president has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has suggested a similar move, potentially involving an overnight "internet blackout" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The government in The Dutch government has advised families to prevent their youngsters from social media until 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has adopted a advisory resolution demanding a ban for under-16s without a parent decides otherwise is provided. Although it warns of the "compulsive" quality of these platforms, the step does not enact binding law.

"A clear age restriction is a solid first step," said a leading parliamentarian behind the resolution.

The United Kingdom: A Cautious Stance

In the UK, the administration has kept open a future ban, stating that "nothing is off the table" but stressing any policy must be "based on robust research".

Previously, support built behind a bill to introduce restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was in the end weakened. Nonetheless, the government pledged to investigate the issue.

Charities have expressed apprehensions. A prominent charity established by the relatives of a young person who died after being exposed to dangerous social media material contends that a blanket age ban might not make platforms safer and could create a "cliff edge" of risk when users become eligible.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the failure of the Silicon Valley to build tools that are appropriate and fit for young users," commented a influential child protection advocate.

The United States: A State-by-State Landscape

Across America, action is primarily occurring at the regional level due to country-wide gridlock.

• Utah demands guardian permission for minors to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has passed a bill banning those below 14 from joining social media, though it is entangled in court battles.
• Virginia has passed a regulation restricting under-16s to a single hour of social media use per day, with any further use requiring a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly passed measures mandating parental consent for teenagers to open social media presences.

Despite bipartisan support and proposals from some politicians to copy this lead, a nationwide ban is currently seen as unlikely.

International Outlook

Apart from the West, other countries are also considering moves.

• Malaysia intends to prohibit social media for those under sixteen starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the minimum age for one major platform to 16.

However, world agencies take a more nuanced tone. A major UN agency has advised that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "might prove counterproductive". The body highlights that the internet can be a "critical link" for vulnerable children and that regulation should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to prioritize user protection.

Even as this international conversation evolves, the policies of the Australian government and others indicate that states internationally are increasingly willing to delay for platforms to act voluntarily.