🔗 Share this article

Australia's controversial policy to restrict social platforms access for young people below 16 is sparking debate internationally. Officials, campaigners, and families are monitoring intently to see if this strategy will become a template for the rest of the world.

European Momentum

Throughout Europe, a increasing group of nations are considering comparable restrictions.

• Denmark has stated a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM arguing that smartphones and platforms are "robbing our children's childhood". The policy may be formalized soon.
• Norway is planning to implement a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to protect children from the "influence of the AI".
• Ireland is developing a digital ID system to authenticate the age and identity of social media participants. Authorities have stated that an similar ban is "an tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the prime minister has called on lawmakers to pass a proposal increasing the minimum age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has suggested a comparable move, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The government in The Dutch government has advised guardians to block their kids from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has passed a non-binding resolution supporting a ban for minors without guardian approval is granted. While it warns of the "habit-forming" quality of these platforms, the move does not create enforceable legislation.

"A clear age barrier is a good first step," stated the parliamentarian behind the resolution.

The UK: A Cautious Stance

Across Britain, the administration has kept open a potential ban, emphasizing that "no measure is off the table" but stressing any action must be "supported by conclusive research".

Earlier, support grew behind a legislative effort to introduce restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately modified. However, the administration committed to further research the issue.

Charities have expressed warnings. One foundation founded by the family of a young person who was lost after viewing dangerous social media material suggests that a strict age ban may not make platforms safer and could lead to a "cliff edge" of harm when teens become eligible.

"This ban is a response to the failure of the social media companies to build products and services that are appropriate and suitable for young users," said a influential online safety campaigner.

The US: A State-by-State Picture

Stateside, action is largely occurring at the local level due to country-wide stalemate.

• Utah requires parental consent for minors to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a bill prohibiting under-14s from joining social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has enacted a law capping under-16s to one hour of social media time per day, with additional time requiring parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have similarly enacted measures mandating guardian approval for minors to set up social media accounts.

Even with cross-party agreement and proposals from some individuals to mimic Australia's path, a US-wide ban is currently seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Perspectives

Beyond these regions, further nations are likewise exploring options.

• The Malaysian government aims to prohibit social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• Brazil has increased the minimum age for one major platform to 16.

But, international organizations take a more cautious stance. A major UN agency has advised that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "might backfire". The agency notes that the internet can be a "critical link" for marginalized children and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to improve user protection.

While this worldwide debate continues, the actions of the Australian government and several other countries demonstrate that states internationally are less and less willing to delay for platforms to self-regulate.