The nation's decisive move to restrict social media access for young people below 16 is creating waves worldwide. Politicians, campaigners, and parents are monitoring with great interest to see if this approach will inspire imitation for countries abroad.
The European Momentum
Across Europe, a rising chorus of states are moving toward parallel bans.
- The Danish government plans a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister arguing that smartphones and platforms are "robbing our children's childhood". A law may be formalized soon.
- Norway is set to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard young people from the "power of the recommendation systems".
- Ireland is working on a digital ID system to confirm the identity and age of social media account holders. The media minister have indicated that an similar ban remains "a potential tools in reserve".
- In The Spanish government, the leader has urged parliament to pass a law increasing the legal age for joining social media to 16.
- In France, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a comparable action, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
- The administration in The Netherlands has advised families to block their kids from social media up to the age of 15.
At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has passed a symbolic resolution calling for a ban for minors without parental consent is provided. Although it highlights of the "compulsive" design of these services, the move does not establish binding law.
"An effective age restriction is a useful first step," said a leading European lawmaker behind the measure.
The UK: An Evidence-Based Eye
Across Britain, the administration has kept open a future ban, stating that "no measure is being dismissed" but maintaining any action must be "based on conclusive evidence".
Previously, support built behind a bill to introduce limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately weakened. Nonetheless, the administration vowed to further research the topic.
Charities have raised apprehensions. A prominent charity established by the relatives of a girl who died after viewing dangerous platform posts suggests that a strict age ban might not improve online safety and could create a "cliff edge" of risk when teens turn 16.
"Australia's ban is a answer to the failure of the tech sector to design platforms and apps that are safe and fit for minors," said a leading peer.
America: A State-by-State Approach
Across America, legislation is largely occurring at the regional level due to federal gridlock.
- The state of Utah demands parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and controls late-night use.
- The state of Florida has enacted a measure prohibiting children under fourteen from joining social media, though it is entangled in court battles.
- The state of Virginia has enacted a regulation restricting under-16s to one hour of social media access per day, with extra use dependent on adult consent.
- Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly enacted laws mandating adult authorization for under-16s to set up social media profiles.
Even with cross-party agreement and calls from certain figures to copy this example, a US-wide ban is currently seen as improbable.
Worldwide Perspectives
Apart from Europe and the US, further states are similarly exploring options.
- Malaysia aims to ban social media for under-16s beginning next year.
- Brazil has increased the access age for one major platform to 16.
Yet, global bodies strike a more measured stance. A major UN 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 marginalized youth and that government action should not be a "excuse" for social media firms to prioritize user protection.
Even as this international debate continues, the policies of Australia and several other countries indicate that policymakers internationally are no longer content to wait for platforms to act voluntarily.
