🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold policy to ban social media access for individuals under sixteen is creating waves worldwide. Politicians, campaigners, and guardians are monitoring closely to see if this tactic will become a template for the rest of the world.

European Trend

In Europe, a increasing number of states are moving toward similar restrictions.

• The Danish government has stated a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister arguing that smartphones and platforms are "taking away our youngsters' youth". Legislation is expected to be formalized soon.
• Norway is planning to enforce a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to shield the young from the "manipulative force of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is developing a digital wallet to verify the identity and age of social media participants. Authorities have stated that an Australia-style ban remains "an options in reserve".
• In The Spanish government, the prime minister has asked parliament to pass a proposal raising the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In The French government, the president has proposed a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has endorsed a similar action, including an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The authorities in the Netherlands has urged families to restrict their kids from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has approved a advisory statement calling for a ban for minors except if a parent decides otherwise is provided. While it cautions of the "habit-forming" design of these platforms, the resolution does not create enforceable legislation.

"A strong age limit is a good starting point," stated the MEP driving the resolution.

The United Kingdom: A Watchful Stance

For the United Kingdom, the administration has remained open to a future ban, stating that "nothing is being dismissed" but insisting any policy must be "supported by robust evidence".

Last year, support gathered behind a bill to impose limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually modified. Instead, the administration vowed to investigate the issue.

Campaign organizations have raised warnings. A prominent charity established by the family of a teenager who died after encountering disturbing platform posts argues that a blanket age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could create a "cliff edge" of exposure when teens become eligible.

"The Australian ban is a reaction to the refusal of the social media companies to create tools that are secure and suitable for children," stated a leading child protection advocate.

The US: A Decentralized Approach

In the United States, regulation is mostly happening at the state level due to federal inaction.

• The state of Utah mandates guardian permission for minors to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• Florida has passed a bill barring those below 14 from joining social media, though it faces legal challenges.
• The state of Virginia has enacted a rule restricting under-16s to a single hour of social media access per day, with any further access needing a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly introduced bills demanding guardian approval for under-16s to open social media presences.

Even with cross-party agreement and suggestions from various politicians to follow this example, a nationwide ban is currently seen as improbable.

International Outlook

Outside of Europe and the US, additional countries are similarly taking action.

• The Malaysian government aims to restrict social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• Brazil has raised the access age for one major platform to 16.

However, global agencies strike a more nuanced tone. Unicef has warned that age-based restrictions carry risks and "may even have unintended consequences". The agency highlights that social networks can be a "lifeline" for isolated youth and that bans should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to improve safety.

While this worldwide discussion evolves, the policies of the Australian government and several other countries show that states internationally are less and less willing to wait for tech companies to act voluntarily.