🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold action to ban social platforms access for young people below 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Politicians, safety advocates, and parents are watching intently to see if this tactic will become a template for the rest of the world.

European Momentum

Across Europe, a growing chorus of states are considering parallel measures.

• The Danish government has stated a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the leader stating that phones and networks are "robbing our children's innocence". Legislation is expected to be enacted in the coming year.
• Norway is planning to implement a age restriction of 15, pointing to the need to shield children from the "power of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is working on a online verification tool to verify the user details of social media participants. The media minister have stated that an similar ban is "one of the tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the president has asked parliament to pass a law increasing the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In The French government, the leader has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a related move, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in The Dutch government has urged parents to restrict their children from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has adopted a symbolic resolution calling for a ban for minors unless parental consent is granted. Even though it warns of the "compulsive" quality of these services, the move does not establish enforceable legislation.

"A strong age barrier is a good foundation," commented a leading European lawmaker behind the measure.

Britain: A Cautious Stance

Across Britain, the government has remained open to a potential ban, stating that "no option is off the table" but maintaining any action must be "based on conclusive evidence".

Previously, interest built behind a legislative effort to enact controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end modified. Nonetheless, the government pledged to conduct more studies the matter.

Advocacy groups have raised warnings. A prominent charity founded by the relatives of a young person who took her own life after viewing disturbing platform posts contends that a blanket age ban might not protect children and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of harm when users turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a response to the inability of the social media companies to build platforms and apps that are appropriate and fit for young users," commented a leading peer.

The US: A State-by-State Approach

Stateside, regulation is largely happening at the state government level due to national gridlock.

• Utah demands guardian permission for minors to use social media and controls overnight use.
• Florida has passed a bill barring under-14s from accessing social media, though it is subject to constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has approved a regulation limiting under-16s to a single hour of social media access per day, with extra use requiring parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise enacted bills mandating parental consent for teenagers to set up social media profiles.

Despite cross-party agreement and proposals from certain politicians to mimic the Australian lead, a federal ban is right now seen as improbable.

Worldwide Outlook

Outside of these regions, other states are also considering moves.

• The Malaysian government plans to ban social media for under-16s beginning next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has increased the access age for one major platform to 16.

Yet, global agencies take a more nuanced stance. Unicef has cautioned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "may even backfire". The organization notes that online platforms can be a "critical link" for marginalized children and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to invest in user protection.

Even as this global conversation continues, the policies of this nation and others demonstrate that policymakers internationally are less and less prepared to delay for tech companies to act voluntarily.