The Australian controversial policy to ban social media access for those under 16 is sending ripples internationally. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and guardians are watching with great interest to see if this strategy will inspire imitation for other nations.
European Momentum
Throughout Europe, a increasing chorus of states are moving toward similar restrictions.
- The Danish government has stated a restriction on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister arguing that smartphones and networks are "robbing our youngsters' innocence". The policy could be enacted next year.
- Norway is preparing to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to protect children from the "influence of the AI".
- Ireland is working on a online verification tool to confirm the age and identity of social media account holders. Authorities have suggested that an Australian-model ban is "a potential tools under consideration".
- In The Spanish government, the president has called on lawmakers to pass a proposal increasing the minimum age for using social media to 16.
- In The French government, the head of state has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has suggested a similar move, alongside an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
- The administration in The Dutch government has recommended parents to restrict their children from social media before 15.
For the broader EU, the EU parliament has passed a symbolic statement supporting a ban for under-16s without parental consent is granted. Even though it warns of the "addictive" design of these apps, the resolution does not establish enforceable legislation.
"A clear age barrier is a useful foundation," said the parliamentarian driving the initiative.
The UK: A Cautious Stance
In the UK, the government has not ruled out a possible ban, emphasizing that "no option is off the table" but insisting any policy must be "supported by strong data".
Previously, support built behind a bill to enact controls on social media use by minors, but it was eventually weakened. Instead, the administration vowed to further research the issue.
Charities have voiced warnings. A prominent charity founded by the loved ones of a young person who took her own life after encountering dangerous online content contends that a strict age ban may not improve online safety and could create a "dangerous transition" of harm when teens reach the legal age.
"This ban is a reaction to the failure of the social media companies to create platforms and apps that are safe and age appropriate for young users," said a prominent child protection advocate.
The United States: A Fragmented Approach
In the United States, regulation is mostly happening at the state level amid country-wide gridlock.
- Utah mandates guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and limits nighttime use.
- Florida has signed a measure banning under-14s from joining social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
- Virginia has enacted a rule capping minors to a single hour of social media use per day, with additional use needing adult consent.
- The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise enacted laws demanding guardian approval for under-16s to open social media profiles.
Even with widespread concern and calls from some individuals to follow this example, a US-wide ban is right now seen as improbable.
Global Perspectives
Outside of these regions, other countries are also considering moves.
- Malaysia intends to prohibit social media for under-16s starting from next year.
- Brazil has raised the access age for one major platform to 16.
But, global agencies adopt a more measured position. A major UN agency has advised that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "might backfire". The organization notes that social networks can be a "lifeline" for vulnerable young people and that regulation should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to prioritize user protection.
As this global debate evolves, the actions of this nation and several other countries show that policymakers internationally are no longer willing to stand by for the industry to act voluntarily.
