🔗 Share this article

The Australian bold action to restrict social networking access for young people below 16 is sending ripples worldwide. Officials, child protection groups, and guardians are monitoring closely to see if this tactic will become a template for countries abroad.

Across Europe Momentum

Throughout Europe, a increasing group of countries are exploring comparable bans.

• The Danish government has stated a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the leader declaring that mobile devices and apps are "robbing our youngsters' youth". A law is expected to be formalized next year.
• Norway is planning to enforce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to shield the young from the "power of the algorithms".
• Ireland is working on a digital ID system to verify the age and identity of social media participants. Officials have suggested that an Australia-style ban is "one of the options in reserve".
• In Spain, the president has called on parliament to enact a proposal increasing the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has recommended a similar step, including an overnight "internet blackout" for adolescents.
• The administration in the Netherlands has advised guardians to prevent their kids from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has adopted a advisory motion calling for a ban for teenagers under 16 unless guardian approval is granted. Although it highlights of the "addictive" design of these platforms, the resolution does not enact mandatory rules.

"A clear age barrier is a useful foundation," commented one MEP supporting the initiative.

Britain: A Watchful Approach

Across Britain, the leadership has remained open to a possible ban, emphasizing that "no option is off the table" but insisting any decision must be "supported by strong research".

Earlier, momentum gathered behind a proposal to impose controls on social media use by under-16s, but it was ultimately weakened. However, the administration vowed to conduct more studies the issue.

Campaign organizations have expressed apprehensions. A prominent charity founded by the relatives of a girl who took her own life after being exposed to harmful social media material argues that a simple age ban might not protect children and could create a "dangerous transition" of risk when users reach the legal age.

"This ban is a response to the refusal of the tech sector to design products and services that are safe and suitable for young users," said a leading peer.

America: A Fragmented Approach

Across America, legislation is primarily happening at the state level due to federal stalemate.

• Utah demands guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and limits overnight use.
• Florida has passed a measure prohibiting children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it is subject to constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has passed a rule capping minors to a single hour of social media use per day, with extra access needing adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly introduced measures demanding parental consent for minors to open social media profiles.

Even with bipartisan support and calls from various individuals to follow the Australian example, a US-wide ban is currently seen as improbable.

Worldwide Views

Outside of the West, additional states are also taking action.

• Malaysia plans to restrict social media for under-16s effective next year.
• Brazil has raised the minimum age for the platform Instagram to 16.

But, global bodies take a more nuanced tone. A major UN agency has warned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "might prove counterproductive". The organization points out that the internet can be a "vital connection" for marginalized children and that bans should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to prioritize child safeguards.

Even as this global conversation unfolds, the actions of Australia and others demonstrate that policymakers internationally are increasingly content to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.