🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold move to prohibit social media access for individuals under sixteen is creating waves around the globe. Politicians, child protection groups, and parents are monitoring with great interest to see if this tactic will inspire imitation for the rest of the world.

European Movement

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

• The Danish government has announced a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader arguing that mobile devices and platforms are "robbing our youngsters' childhood". A law could be formalized next year.
• Norway is preparing to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to safeguard children from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is working on a digital wallet to confirm the identity and age of social media users. Authorities have stated that an Australia-style ban is "one of the measures under consideration".
• In The Spanish government, the president has called on lawmakers to pass a proposal raising the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In The French government, the head of state has floated the idea of a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has suggested a comparable action, alongside an overnight "internet blackout" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has recommended guardians to block their youngsters from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has adopted a advisory resolution calling for a ban for teenagers under 16 without parental consent is provided. Even though it warns of the "compulsive" design of these apps, the move does not establish binding law.

"An effective age restriction is a useful foundation," said a leading parliamentarian supporting the measure.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Stance

Across Britain, the government has remained open to a possible ban, arguing that "no option is off the table" but stressing any policy must be "grounded in conclusive data".

Previously, support built behind a bill to impose controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually weakened. However, the administration vowed to further research the matter.

Charities have raised apprehensions. A prominent charity established by the family of a teenager who took her own life after viewing dangerous online content suggests that a blanket age ban might not protect children and could result in a "sudden drop-off" of harm when users turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the failure of the tech sector to build products and services that are secure and suitable for children," said a prominent peer.

America: A Fragmented Landscape

In the United States, legislation is largely occurring at the local government level against a backdrop of country-wide gridlock.

• The state of Utah mandates parental consent for under-18s to use social media and limits overnight use.
• Florida has signed a measure barring children under fourteen from joining social media, though it is subject to constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has approved a law limiting under-16s to 60 minutes of social media access per day, with extra use dependent on a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have likewise introduced laws mandating guardian approval for under-16s to create social media profiles.

Despite widespread concern and suggestions from certain individuals to follow the Australian example, a nationwide ban is right now seen as improbable.

Global Views

Outside of Europe and the US, other nations are similarly considering moves.

• Malaysia intends to restrict social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• Brazil has increased the access age for the platform Instagram to 16.

But, global organizations strike a more cautious tone. Unicef has advised that social media bans carry risks and "could prove counterproductive". The agency highlights that social networks can be a "lifeline" for isolated youth and that bans should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to improve child safeguards.

Even as this global debate unfolds, the policies of the Australian government and its followers indicate that policymakers internationally are increasingly content to delay for platforms to make changes on their own.