🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold move to ban social networking access for those under 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Officials, campaigners, and families are monitoring closely to see if this tactic will set a precedent for countries abroad.

The European Trend

Across Europe, a growing chorus of states are exploring parallel bans.

• Denmark plans a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM declaring that phones and apps are "robbing our kids' childhood". Legislation could be passed soon.
• Norway is planning to implement a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to protect young people from the "influence of the AI".
• Ireland is developing a digital ID system to confirm the identity and age of social media participants. Officials have stated that an Australia-style ban could be "a potential tools under consideration".
• In The Spanish government, the prime minister has called on the legislature to approve a proposal lifting the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has proposed a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has recommended a similar action, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The authorities in the Netherlands has recommended families to prevent their children from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has adopted a symbolic statement demanding a ban for under-16s except if a parent decides otherwise is granted. While it warns of the "addictive" design of these services, the resolution does not enact mandatory rules.

"A clear age restriction is a solid first step," commented one parliamentarian behind the resolution.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Approach

For the United Kingdom, the administration has kept open a future ban, stating that "nothing is being dismissed" but maintaining any decision must be "supported by strong research".

Previously, momentum gathered behind a bill to introduce limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end modified. Instead, the government committed to conduct more studies the issue.

Charities have raised concerns. An organization established by the relatives of a young person who took her own life after being exposed to disturbing social media material contends that a blanket age ban may not make platforms safer and could result in a "sudden drop-off" of risk when young people turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the inability of the Silicon Valley to build platforms and apps that are safe and suitable for minors," said a influential peer.

The US: A State-by-State Landscape

Stateside, action is primarily unfolding at the local government level amid country-wide gridlock.

• The state of Utah demands guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has signed a measure banning children under fourteen from joining social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has passed a law capping teenagers to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with additional time requiring a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise enacted bills demanding guardian approval for teenagers to set up social media presences.

Even with bipartisan support and proposals from some politicians to mimic the Australian example, a US-wide ban is presently seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Outlook

Apart from these regions, further states are similarly exploring options.

• Malaysia plans to ban social media for under-16s beginning next year.
• Brazil has lifted the access age for one major platform to 16.

However, international agencies take a more cautious position. Unicef has warned that social media bans carry risks and "might have unintended consequences". The body highlights that the internet can be a "critical link" for marginalized youth and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for social media firms to prioritize child safeguards.

While this worldwide conversation continues, the policies of this nation and its followers demonstrate that policymakers globally are no longer prepared to stand by for the industry to make changes on their own.