🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial action to restrict social networking access for young people below 16 is sending ripples around the globe. Officials, campaigners, and guardians are observing with great interest to see if this tactic will become a template for other nations.

The European Trend

In Europe, a rising chorus of nations are moving toward comparable bans.

• Denmark has stated a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM declaring that mobile devices and networks are "taking away our children's innocence". The policy could be formalized next year.
• Norway is preparing to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to shield the young from the "power of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to confirm the user details of social media users. The media minister have indicated that an similar ban remains "one of the tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the leader has urged lawmakers to approve a bill increasing the legal age for using social media to 16.
• In The French government, the president has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a similar move, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The government in The Dutch government has advised parents to prevent their youngsters from social media until 15.

Across the European Union, the European parliament has passed a symbolic resolution demanding a ban for minors except if guardian approval is given. Even though it highlights of the "compulsive" design of these platforms, the move does not enact mandatory rules.

"A strong age barrier is a good first step," commented the MEP behind the initiative.

The United Kingdom: A Cautious Eye

Across Britain, the administration has not ruled out a potential ban, stating that "nothing is discarded" but maintaining any decision must be "grounded in conclusive evidence".

Last year, momentum grew behind a legislative effort to enact controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end modified. Instead, the administration committed to further research the matter.

Charities have expressed warnings. A prominent charity set up by the relatives of a young person who was lost after viewing disturbing platform posts suggests that a simple age ban could fail to improve online safety and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when young people become eligible.

"This ban is a answer to the refusal of the social media companies to design tools that are secure and age appropriate for young users," said a prominent peer.

America: A State-by-State Approach

In the United States, regulation is mostly happening at the local government level due to country-wide gridlock.

• Utah requires parental consent for minors to use social media and limits overnight use.
• Florida has signed a bill prohibiting under-14s from creating accounts on social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has enacted a law restricting minors to a single hour of social media access per day, with additional time dependent on a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have also enacted measures requiring parental consent for under-16s to create social media accounts.

Despite bipartisan support and calls from some individuals to mimic the Australian lead, a US-wide ban is currently seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Perspectives

Outside of these regions, other states are similarly taking action.

• The Malaysian government aims to prohibit social media for those under sixteen beginning next year.
• Brazil has lifted the minimum age for Instagram to 16.

However, international agencies strike a more measured stance. The UN children's agency has advised that social media bans carry risks and "could backfire". The agency points out that social networks can be a "lifeline" for marginalized youth and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to prioritize child safeguards.

As this global conversation evolves, the actions of Australia and its followers indicate that states internationally are increasingly content to stand by for the industry to act voluntarily.