🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold action to prohibit social platforms access for young people below 16 is sending ripples worldwide. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and parents are observing intently to see if this strategy will become a template for the rest of the world.

European Movement

Across Europe, a growing group of states are exploring similar measures.

• The Danish government has announced a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the PM declaring that mobile devices and networks are "stealing our kids' innocence". The policy could be passed in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is preparing to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to shield young people from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is working on a digital wallet to verify the user details of social media participants. Authorities have suggested that an Australian-model ban could be "one of the measures under consideration".
• In Spain, the leader has urged parliament to approve a bill raising the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has proposed a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has recommended a similar action, alongside an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Dutch government has recommended families to prevent their children from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has passed a non-binding resolution calling for a ban for under-16s without a parent decides otherwise is provided. Even though it highlights of the "habit-forming" design of these services, the step does not enact binding law.

"A strong age restriction is a useful first step," commented the MEP behind the resolution.

The UK: A Watchful Stance

For the United Kingdom, the government has kept open a possible ban, emphasizing that "no measure is being dismissed" but stressing any policy must be "based on conclusive evidence".

Previously, interest gathered behind a proposal to impose restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually modified. Nonetheless, the government pledged to further research the issue.

Campaign organizations have expressed warnings. A prominent charity founded by the relatives of a girl who died after viewing dangerous social media material argues that a blanket age ban could fail to protect children and could lead to a "dangerous transition" of risk when teens become eligible.

"The Australian ban is a reaction to the refusal of the social media companies to create platforms and apps that are appropriate and fit for young users," said a influential peer.

The US: A Decentralized Approach

Stateside, action is mostly occurring at the regional level amid country-wide inaction.

• Utah mandates parental consent for under-18s to use social media and controls overnight use.
• Florida has signed a law barring those below 14 from accessing social media, though it is subject to constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has approved a law restricting teenagers to one hour of social media use per day, with extra time dependent on a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also enacted bills mandating parental consent for under-16s to set up social media profiles.

Despite bipartisan support and proposals from some individuals to mimic Australia's path, a federal ban is currently seen as unlikely.

Global Perspectives

Outside of the West, additional states are likewise exploring options.

• Malaysia plans to restrict social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the required age for one major platform to 16.

Yet, international organizations strike a more nuanced stance. Unicef has advised that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "could have unintended consequences". The body notes that social networks can be a "critical link" for isolated youth and that government action should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to invest in user protection.

While this worldwide debate unfolds, the policies of the Australian government and several other countries show that states internationally are increasingly content to stand by for tech companies to act voluntarily.