🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial policy to restrict social media access for those under 16 is sending ripples worldwide. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and guardians are monitoring with great interest to see if this tactic will become a template for other nations.

The European Momentum

Throughout Europe, a rising group of states are moving toward parallel bans.

• The Danish government has stated a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM arguing that mobile devices and networks are "robbing our children's childhood". The policy could be passed next year.
• Norway is preparing to enforce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to shield children from the "power of the algorithms".
• Ireland is working on a digital wallet to verify the user details of social media participants. The media minister have indicated that an similar ban could be "an measures in reserve".
• In Spain, the prime minister has called on parliament to approve a law raising the legal age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the president has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has recommended a similar action, including an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The administration in The Dutch government has recommended families to block their children from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has approved a symbolic statement demanding a ban for under-16s without a parent decides otherwise is granted. While it cautions of the "habit-forming" nature of these platforms, the step does not enact binding law.

"An effective age limit is a good first step," stated a leading MEP supporting the initiative.

Britain: A Watchful Stance

For the United Kingdom, the government has remained open to a future ban, emphasizing that "nothing is being dismissed" but maintaining any decision must be "based on conclusive data".

Previously, momentum built behind a bill to enact controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately weakened. Instead, the administration committed to investigate the matter.

Charities have expressed concerns. One foundation set up by the relatives of a young person who was lost after viewing disturbing online content suggests that a simple age ban might not make platforms safer and could lead to a "dangerous transition" of risk when young people reach the legal age.

"The Australian ban is a reaction to the inability of the social media companies to design platforms and apps that are appropriate and fit for children," said a leading child protection advocate.

The US: A State-by-State Landscape

In the United States, regulation is largely occurring at the local government level amid national gridlock.

• The state of Utah demands adult approval for minors to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has signed a bill barring those below 14 from joining social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has enacted a rule capping teenagers to one hour of social media use per day, with any further access requiring adult consent.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have also passed measures mandating guardian approval for teenagers to create social media presences.

Despite widespread concern and proposals from some politicians to copy the Australian example, a US-wide ban is right now seen as improbable.

Global Outlook

Apart from the West, other nations are likewise taking action.

• The Malaysian government aims to restrict social media for teenagers starting from next year.
• Brazil has increased the minimum age for the platform Instagram to 16.

Yet, global agencies strike a more measured position. Unicef has cautioned that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "could have unintended consequences". The organization highlights that online platforms can be a "critical link" for vulnerable children and that bans should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to improve child safeguards.

Even as this international debate unfolds, the actions of Australia and its followers indicate that governments globally are no longer content to wait for tech companies to act voluntarily.