🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive action to ban social platforms access for those under 16 is creating waves internationally. Politicians, campaigners, and parents are observing intently to see if this strategy will set a precedent for countries abroad.

Across Europe Trend

Throughout Europe, a increasing chorus of countries are exploring comparable bans.

• The Danish government has announced a restriction on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister arguing that phones and platforms are "stealing our youngsters' youth". Legislation is expected to be formalized soon.
• The Norwegian government is preparing to enforce a age restriction of 15, citing the need to safeguard young people from the "power of the AI".
• Ireland is working on a digital wallet to authenticate the age and identity of social media account holders. Authorities have stated that an similar ban could be "an tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the prime minister has urged lawmakers to approve a bill lifting the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In The French government, the head of state has proposed a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has suggested a related move, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has recommended guardians to restrict their kids from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has passed a non-binding motion supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 unless parental consent is given. While it cautions of the "habit-forming" nature of these platforms, the resolution does not establish mandatory rules.

"A clear age limit is a useful foundation," stated a leading European lawmaker supporting the measure.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Approach

Across Britain, the administration has kept open a future ban, emphasizing that "no option is off the table" but stressing any action must be "based on strong research".

Previously, momentum built behind a bill to enact limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end watered down. Nonetheless, the administration pledged to conduct more studies the matter.

Campaign organizations have expressed apprehensions. An organization set up by the loved ones of a girl who was lost after encountering dangerous platform posts suggests that a simple age ban may not improve online safety and could lead to a "cliff edge" of risk when teens reach the legal age.

"This ban is a reaction to the inability of the social media companies to design tools that are secure and suitable for young users," said a leading peer.

The United States: A Decentralized Landscape

Stateside, regulation is mostly occurring at the regional government level due to national inaction.

• Utah demands adult approval for those under 18 to use social media and restricts nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has signed a law barring under-14s from joining social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has passed a rule capping under-16s to one hour of social media access per day, with extra time dependent on a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have likewise enacted laws demanding parental consent for teenagers to open social media profiles.

Despite widespread concern and calls from some politicians to follow this path, a federal ban is currently seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Perspectives

Outside of Europe and the US, other nations are also taking action.

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

Yet, global bodies adopt a more measured stance. Unicef has cautioned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "might have unintended consequences". The agency points out that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for isolated young people and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to prioritize child safeguards.

As this worldwide debate unfolds, the actions of the Australian government and its followers indicate that states internationally are no longer willing to wait for tech companies to self-regulate.