🔗 Share this article

The Australian bold action to ban social networking access for those under 16 is sparking debate internationally. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and families are observing with great interest to see if this approach will inspire imitation for countries abroad.

The European Momentum

Throughout Europe, a growing group of states are considering comparable bans.

• Denmark has stated a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the PM declaring that mobile devices and apps are "robbing our youngsters' childhood". A law could be formalized in the coming year.
• Norway is planning to introduce a access barrier of 15, citing the need to safeguard children from the "manipulative force of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is developing a digital wallet to verify the age and identity of social media participants. The media minister have suggested that an similar ban is "a potential measures in reserve".
• In The Spanish government, the leader has asked parliament to enact a proposal raising the access age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the president has proposed a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has suggested a related move, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The government in The Dutch government has urged families to block their kids from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the European parliament has passed a symbolic resolution supporting a ban for minors except if parental consent is given. Although it warns of the "compulsive" design of these apps, the move does not create enforceable legislation.

"A strong age restriction is a good foundation," said the MEP driving the measure.

The United Kingdom: A Watchful Eye

For the United Kingdom, the administration has kept open a potential ban, stating that "no measure is off the table" but insisting any action must be "based on robust research".

Last year, momentum grew behind a proposal to introduce restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately watered down. However, the administration committed to further research the matter.

Advocacy groups have voiced concerns. An organization founded by the family of a girl who died after encountering disturbing online content suggests that a simple age ban may not improve online safety and could create a "sudden drop-off" of harm when users reach the legal age.

"This ban is a response to the inability of the Silicon Valley to build products and services that are safe and age appropriate for young users," said a prominent child protection advocate.

The United States: A Decentralized Approach

Stateside, legislation is mostly happening at the state level due to federal inaction.

• The state of Utah mandates parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and limits overnight use.
• Florida has signed a bill barring children under fourteen from joining social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• The state of Virginia has passed a law restricting minors to one hour of social media access per day, with extra use needing adult consent.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also passed measures demanding guardian approval for under-16s to set up social media presences.

Despite widespread concern and calls from certain figures to mimic the Australian example, a nationwide ban is presently seen as improbable.

Global Outlook

Outside of these regions, other states are also considering moves.

• Malaysia plans to restrict social media for under-16s effective next year.
• Brazil has raised the access age for Instagram to 16.

However, global organizations strike a more cautious position. The UN children's agency has cautioned that age-based restrictions carry risks and "may even prove counterproductive". The agency notes that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable youth and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for platform operators to improve child safeguards.

As this global conversation evolves, the policies of the Australian government and others demonstrate that states globally are less and less prepared to wait for tech companies to act voluntarily.