🔗 Share this article

Australia's decisive policy to restrict social platforms access for young people below 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Officials, child protection groups, and guardians are watching closely to see if this tactic will become a template for the rest of the world.

Across Europe Movement

Across Europe, a growing chorus of countries are exploring comparable measures.

• The Danish government plans a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader declaring that mobile devices and networks are "robbing our youngsters' childhood". Legislation could be formalized in the coming year.
• Norway is preparing to enforce a age restriction of 15, pointing to the need to safeguard young people from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• The Irish government is introducing a digital wallet to authenticate the identity and age of social media account holders. The media minister have suggested that an Australia-style ban remains "one of the options in reserve".
• In Spain, the leader has urged lawmakers to enact a proposal lifting the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has recommended a similar step, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The government in The Netherlands has advised parents to prevent their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

Across the European Union, the European parliament has passed a advisory motion supporting a ban for minors without guardian approval is given. Although it highlights of the "addictive" nature of these apps, the step does not establish binding law.

"A strong age limit is a useful starting point," commented one parliamentarian supporting the measure.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Approach

For the United Kingdom, the leadership has kept open a potential ban, arguing that "no option is off the table" but insisting any action must be "based on conclusive data".

Previously, momentum built behind a proposal to impose restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually modified. Instead, the government committed to conduct more studies the matter.

Advocacy groups have expressed apprehensions. An organization founded by the loved ones of a young person who died after viewing disturbing social media material contends that a strict age ban could fail to protect children and could create a "cliff edge" of risk when users reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a response to the failure of the tech sector to design platforms and apps that are safe and fit for young users," said a prominent online safety campaigner.

The US: A State-by-State Approach

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

• Utah demands guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• Florida has passed a measure barring under-14s from accessing social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
• Virginia has approved a regulation capping under-16s to one hour of social media use per day, with any further use needing a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise passed measures requiring parental consent for teenagers to create social media presences.

Despite bipartisan support and proposals from certain figures to copy Australia's example, a federal ban is currently seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Views

Outside of the West, further nations are likewise taking action.

• Malaysia aims to prohibit social media for teenagers starting from next year.
• Brazil has lifted the access age for one major platform to 16.

Yet, global agencies adopt a more nuanced position. The UN children's agency has advised that social media bans carry risks and "may even prove counterproductive". The organization notes that social networks can be a "critical link" for marginalized young people and that government action should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to improve user protection.

While this global debate continues, the steps of the Australian government and others demonstrate that governments internationally are less and less willing to wait for tech companies to act voluntarily.