🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive policy to ban social media access for individuals under sixteen is sparking debate around the globe. Politicians, child protection groups, and parents are monitoring closely to see if this tactic will set a precedent for the rest of the world.

European Momentum

In Europe, a rising chorus of states are moving toward parallel measures.

• The Danish government has announced a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the leader declaring that smartphones and networks are "robbing our kids' childhood". Legislation could be enacted soon.
• Norway is planning to introduce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to safeguard the young from the "influence of the algorithms".
• Ireland is introducing a online verification tool to verify the user details of social media account holders. Authorities have stated that an similar ban remains "one of the options on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the leader has urged parliament to enact a bill lifting the access age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the president has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a comparable step, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in the Netherlands has urged families to prevent their kids from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has approved a non-binding statement supporting a ban for under-16s without guardian approval is granted. While it highlights of the "habit-forming" design of these platforms, the move does not create mandatory rules.

"An effective age restriction is a useful first step," commented one MEP supporting the resolution.

The United Kingdom: A Cautious Approach

In the UK, the leadership has kept open a possible ban, stating that "no measure is discarded" but insisting any decision must be "grounded in robust data".

Earlier, interest gathered behind a bill to enact controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end watered down. Nonetheless, the administration vowed to conduct more studies the topic.

Advocacy groups have expressed warnings. One foundation founded by the family of a girl who took her own life after being exposed to dangerous platform posts contends that a strict age ban may not protect children and could result in a "sudden drop-off" of risk when teens reach the legal age.

"This ban is a answer to the inability of the Silicon Valley to design tools that are secure and suitable for young users," said a leading online safety campaigner.

The United States: A State-by-State Approach

Across America, action is largely occurring at the local government level amid national inaction.

• The state of Utah mandates guardian permission for minors to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• The state of Florida has enacted a measure banning under-14s from joining social media, though it is subject to constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has passed a rule limiting under-16s to a single hour of social media use per day, with extra time needing adult consent.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly enacted measures requiring guardian approval for teenagers to set up social media presences.

Despite widespread concern and calls from some figures to follow Australia's path, a nationwide ban is currently seen as improbable.

International Outlook

Beyond the West, additional nations are also considering moves.

• The Malaysian government aims to ban social media for under-16s effective next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has increased the required age for Instagram to 16.

But, international organizations adopt a more nuanced tone. Unicef has cautioned that social media bans have downsides and "could have unintended consequences". The agency notes that social networks can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable young people and that bans should not be a "substitute" for social media firms to invest in child safeguards.

While this global discussion evolves, the policies of Australia and its followers indicate that policymakers globally are less and less prepared to delay for tech companies to self-regulate.