🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold policy to prohibit social networking access for individuals under sixteen is creating waves around the globe. Politicians, safety advocates, and guardians are observing intently to see if this strategy will become a template for the rest of the world.

The European Movement

Across Europe, a growing number of nations are considering parallel restrictions.

• Denmark has stated a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister declaring that mobile devices and networks are "robbing our youngsters' youth". A law is expected to be formalized soon.
• Norway is preparing to implement a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to shield the young from the "manipulative force of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is working on a online verification tool to verify the age and identity of social media account holders. Authorities have indicated that an Australian-model ban could be "one of the tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the leader has asked parliament to pass a bill increasing the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In The French government, the leader has proposed a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a similar move, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in The Dutch government has recommended guardians to block their children from social media until 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has passed a symbolic resolution demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 except if parental consent is given. While it warns of the "habit-forming" quality of these platforms, the step does not establish mandatory rules.

"A strong age limit is a solid first step," commented one parliamentarian behind the resolution.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Stance

For the United Kingdom, the leadership has not ruled out a possible ban, stating that "no option is being dismissed" but insisting any policy must be "based on strong data".

Earlier, momentum gathered behind a proposal to impose controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually weakened. Instead, the administration vowed to investigate the issue.

Charities have expressed apprehensions. An organization set up by the loved ones of a girl who was lost after viewing harmful platform posts argues that a blanket age ban could fail to improve online safety and could create a "cliff edge" of risk when users reach the legal age.

"The Australian ban is a answer to the refusal of the Silicon Valley to design products and services that are appropriate and fit for children," said a influential online safety campaigner.

America: A Decentralized Picture

Across America, regulation is mostly occurring at the state level amid national gridlock.

• Utah requires parental consent for minors to use social media and limits late-night use.
• The state of Florida has passed a measure barring children under fourteen from accessing social media, though it faces legal challenges.
• Virginia has enacted a regulation restricting teenagers to 60 minutes of social media time per day, with extra access requiring adult consent.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also introduced measures requiring guardian approval for teenagers to set up social media profiles.

Even with cross-party agreement and suggestions from some figures to follow this example, a federal ban is right now seen as unlikely.

International Perspectives

Apart from these regions, further countries are likewise considering moves.

• Malaysia aims to prohibit social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• Brazil has lifted the minimum age for the platform Instagram to 16.

Yet, global agencies strike a more cautious position. Unicef has advised that age-based restrictions carry risks and "might prove counterproductive". The agency points out that online platforms can be a "critical link" for isolated young people and that government action should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to invest in child safeguards.

Even as this worldwide discussion evolves, the steps of this nation and several other countries demonstrate that states internationally are less and less prepared to delay for platforms to act voluntarily.