🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold move to restrict social platforms access for young people below 16 is creating waves worldwide. Officials, campaigners, and guardians are watching with great interest to see if this approach will become a template for other nations.

The European Trend

In Europe, a rising number of countries are considering parallel bans.

• The Danish government has stated a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the leader stating that mobile devices and platforms are "taking away our kids' childhood". Legislation may be passed soon.
• Norway is preparing to enforce a access barrier of 15, citing the need to shield young people from the "manipulative force of the recommendation systems".
• The Irish government is working on a online verification tool to verify the user details of social media users. The media minister have indicated that an Australian-model ban could be "a potential options in reserve".
• In Spain, the president has asked lawmakers to pass a law raising the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has endorsed a comparable step, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has urged parents to restrict their youngsters from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has adopted a advisory resolution demanding a ban for under-16s unless guardian approval is granted. While it cautions of the "habit-forming" quality of these services, the resolution does not enact mandatory rules.

"A clear age restriction is a good first step," commented the European lawmaker driving the resolution.

Britain: A Watchful Eye

In the UK, the administration has kept open a possible ban, arguing that "no option is off the table" but maintaining any action must be "supported by robust data".

Earlier, momentum built behind a legislative effort to introduce limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually watered down. Nonetheless, the government committed to investigate the topic.

Campaign organizations have expressed apprehensions. An organization founded by the relatives of a girl who was lost after being exposed to disturbing online content suggests that a strict age ban might not protect children and could lead to a "cliff edge" of harm when teens reach the legal age.

"The Australian ban is a reaction to the failure of the Silicon Valley to design products and services that are secure and suitable for children," commented a prominent child protection advocate.

The US: A Fragmented Landscape

In the United States, action is primarily occurring at the regional level amid federal inaction.

• Utah requires guardian permission for minors to use social media and controls late-night use.
• The state of Florida has passed a bill prohibiting those below 14 from accessing social media, though it is entangled in court battles.
• Virginia has passed a regulation restricting under-16s to a single hour of social media time per day, with extra use needing a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise introduced laws demanding parental consent for under-16s to open social media presences.

Even with cross-party agreement and calls from some figures to mimic this lead, a US-wide ban is presently seen as a distant prospect.

International Outlook

Beyond these regions, additional nations are similarly exploring options.

• The Malaysian government plans to prohibit social media for under-16s beginning next year.
• Brazil has raised the minimum age for one major platform to 16.

However, global organizations strike a more nuanced tone. A major UN agency has advised that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "could have unintended consequences". The body points out that online platforms can be a "critical link" for marginalized children and that government action should not be a "excuse" for social media firms to improve child safeguards.

As this global debate unfolds, the policies of the Australian government and its followers indicate that states globally are no longer prepared to wait for platforms to act voluntarily.