🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive action to restrict social media access for individuals under sixteen is sparking debate internationally. Politicians, child protection groups, and parents are watching closely to see if this tactic will set a precedent for the rest of the world.

Across Europe Trend

Throughout Europe, a rising chorus of countries are considering similar restrictions.

• Denmark plans a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the PM arguing that smartphones and platforms are "stealing our children's childhood". Legislation may be formalized next year.
• Norway is planning to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, pointing to the need to shield young people from the "power of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is developing a digital ID system to confirm the age and identity of social media account holders. Officials have indicated that an similar ban is "a potential measures on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the leader has asked parliament to enact a law raising the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has proposed a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has suggested a comparable move, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The administration in the Netherlands has recommended families to restrict their kids from social media until 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has passed a non-binding motion supporting a ban for under-16s except if parental consent is given. Although it highlights of the "habit-forming" design of these apps, the step does not establish mandatory rules.

"A clear age barrier is a solid first step," stated a leading parliamentarian driving the initiative.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Eye

For the United Kingdom, the leadership has kept open a possible ban, emphasizing that "nothing is discarded" but insisting any policy must be "supported by strong data".

Last year, momentum gathered behind a proposal to introduce limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was ultimately modified. However, the administration pledged to investigate the issue.

Campaign organizations have voiced concerns. A prominent charity established by the family of a teenager who died after viewing harmful platform posts contends that a simple age ban might not protect children and could result in a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when teens reach the legal age.

"This ban is a answer to the inability of the Silicon Valley to create tools that are appropriate and age appropriate for minors," said a prominent online safety campaigner.

America: A Fragmented Picture

Stateside, action is largely occurring at the state government level amid national inaction.

• Utah demands parental consent for minors to use social media and controls late-night use.
• Florida has passed a measure banning children under fourteen from joining social media, though it faces court battles.
• Virginia has enacted a rule restricting minors to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with extra time dependent on parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have similarly passed bills demanding guardian approval for minors to set up social media accounts.

Even with cross-party agreement and calls from various figures to follow the Australian path, a US-wide ban is right now seen as improbable.

Global Outlook

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

• Malaysia intends to restrict social media for under-16s beginning next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has raised the access age for one major platform to 16.

Yet, international agencies adopt a more nuanced position. The UN children's agency has cautioned that social media bans have downsides and "might have unintended consequences". The organization points out that online platforms can be a "critical link" for marginalized children and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to prioritize user protection.

As this global discussion unfolds, the steps of the Australian government and several other countries demonstrate that policymakers internationally are no longer willing to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.