🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold move to prohibit social platforms access for young people below 16 is sending ripples worldwide. Politicians, safety advocates, and families are watching with great interest to see if this approach will inspire imitation for countries abroad.

The European Momentum

Across Europe, a increasing number of states are moving toward similar restrictions.

• Denmark has announced a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the PM stating that mobile devices and apps are "taking away our youngsters' youth". The policy could be formalized next year.
• Norway is set to introduce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to safeguard the young from the "power of the recommendation systems".
• The Irish government is working on a digital ID system to confirm the age and identity of social media users. The media minister have suggested that an Australian-model ban is "a potential measures in reserve".
• In Spain, the leader has called on lawmakers to pass a law raising the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has endorsed a comparable action, including an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The government in The Dutch government has advised parents to prevent their children from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has passed a non-binding resolution demanding a ban for under-16s without guardian approval is provided. Although it warns of the "addictive" design of these apps, the move does not enact enforceable legislation.

"A clear age barrier is a solid starting point," said one MEP driving the measure.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Stance

Across Britain, the leadership has not ruled out a potential ban, emphasizing that "nothing is off the table" but stressing any decision must be "supported by strong evidence".

Previously, momentum gathered behind a legislative effort to enact restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end weakened. Nonetheless, the administration pledged to conduct more studies the topic.

Advocacy groups have voiced warnings. A prominent charity founded by the family of a young person who was lost after encountering disturbing platform posts suggests that a blanket age ban might not make platforms safer and could result in a "cliff edge" of exposure when teens turn 16.

"This ban is a response to the inability of the tech sector to build products and services that are appropriate and suitable for young users," said a prominent peer.

America: A Decentralized Approach

Stateside, legislation is mostly occurring at the regional government level against a backdrop of national inaction.

• Utah requires guardian permission for minors to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• Florida has signed a bill prohibiting children under fourteen from joining social media, though it is subject to constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has passed a rule limiting minors to one hour of social media access per day, with additional time requiring adult consent.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise introduced bills mandating parental consent for teenagers to open social media profiles.

Despite widespread concern and proposals from certain politicians to mimic this path, a US-wide ban is currently seen as a distant prospect.

International Views

Beyond these regions, other countries are likewise exploring options.

• The Malaysian government plans to restrict social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• Brazil has increased the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

Yet, world agencies take a more measured stance. The UN children's agency has cautioned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "may even prove counterproductive". The agency highlights that social networks can be a "critical link" for vulnerable youth and that regulation should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to prioritize child safeguards.

Even as this global discussion evolves, the steps of the Australian government and its followers demonstrate that governments internationally are no longer content to wait for the industry to act voluntarily.