🔗 Share this article

Australia's controversial policy to ban social platforms access for young people below 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Politicians, child protection groups, and families are watching with great interest to see if this tactic will become a template for other nations.

The European Momentum

In Europe, a rising number of countries are moving toward comparable restrictions.

• Denmark has announced a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the leader arguing that phones and networks are "robbing our youngsters' childhood". A law may be formalized in the coming year.
• Norway is set to introduce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to protect the young from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• Ireland is developing a online verification tool to authenticate the identity and age of social media account holders. Authorities have suggested that an Australian-model ban could be "a potential options in reserve".
• In The Spanish government, the prime minister has called on parliament to enact a proposal raising the minimum age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the president has proposed a ban for those under fifteen, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a similar move, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The government in The Dutch government has recommended families to restrict their youngsters from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has approved a advisory statement calling for a ban for under-16s unless a parent decides otherwise is granted. While it highlights of the "habit-forming" nature of these apps, the step does not enact enforceable legislation.

"A clear age limit is a solid foundation," said the parliamentarian driving the resolution.

The UK: A Cautious Eye

In the UK, the leadership has remained open to a possible ban, stating that "no measure is discarded" but insisting any action must be "based on robust data".

Last year, momentum built behind a legislative effort to introduce controls on social media use by minors, but it was in the end weakened. Nonetheless, the government committed to investigate the topic.

Advocacy groups have voiced warnings. A prominent charity set up by the family of a teenager who took her own life after viewing disturbing platform posts contends that a blanket age ban might not protect children and could lead to a "cliff edge" of exposure when teens reach the legal age.

"The Australian ban is a response to the refusal of the Silicon Valley to create tools that are secure and fit for children," said a leading child protection advocate.

The United States: A Decentralized Landscape

Stateside, action is largely unfolding at the regional level due to national gridlock.

• Utah demands parental consent for minors to use social media and controls overnight use.
• Florida has enacted a measure banning those below 14 from joining social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has passed a rule restricting teenagers to a single hour of social media use per day, with additional access needing a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise introduced measures demanding guardian approval for minors to set up social media presences.

Despite cross-party agreement and suggestions from various figures to copy Australia's path, a US-wide ban is presently seen as a distant prospect.

International Perspectives

Apart from these regions, further states 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 the platform Instagram to 16.

However, international bodies take a more cautious stance. Unicef has advised that age-based restrictions have downsides and "may even backfire". The organization notes that the internet can be a "vital connection" for marginalized young people and that bans should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to improve user protection.

While this global debate continues, the policies of the Australian government and its followers show that policymakers internationally are increasingly content to delay for platforms to act voluntarily.