🔗 Share this article

The Australian decisive policy to prohibit social platforms access for young people below 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Politicians, safety advocates, and guardians are observing with great interest to see if this approach will become a template for other nations.

The European Trend

In Europe, a growing number of nations are considering parallel bans.

• The Danish government has stated a restriction on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister declaring that smartphones and apps are "robbing our youngsters' innocence". The policy could be enacted soon.
• The Norwegian government is preparing to enforce a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard young people from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is developing a digital ID system to authenticate the user details of social media account holders. Authorities have stated that an similar ban remains "one of the measures under consideration".
• In The Spanish government, the prime minister has called on lawmakers to approve a law lifting the access age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a related action, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The administration in The Netherlands has recommended parents to block their children from social media until 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has passed a symbolic resolution calling for a ban for minors unless parental consent is provided. Although it highlights of the "habit-forming" quality of these platforms, the move does not create mandatory rules.

"A clear age restriction is a useful foundation," commented one MEP behind the initiative.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Stance

For the United Kingdom, the administration has remained open to a potential ban, emphasizing that "no measure is off the table" but insisting any action must be "grounded in strong evidence".

Previously, interest gathered behind a bill to impose restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was in the end watered down. However, the government vowed to further research the topic.

Charities have voiced apprehensions. An organization founded by the loved ones of a girl who was lost after encountering disturbing online content contends that a blanket age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could lead to a "cliff edge" of risk when users reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the inability of the tech sector to design platforms and apps that are safe and suitable for young users," commented a leading peer.

America: A State-by-State Approach

Stateside, legislation is largely occurring at the local level amid federal gridlock.

• Utah mandates parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has enacted a law barring children under fourteen from accessing social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has passed a rule capping under-16s to a single hour of social media use per day, with any further time needing adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise passed measures demanding adult authorization for under-16s to create social media accounts.

Even with cross-party agreement and calls from various politicians to copy this path, a federal ban is presently seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Outlook

Apart from these regions, additional countries are also taking action.

• Malaysia plans to ban social media for teenagers starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has raised the required age for one major platform to 16.

But, international organizations strike a more cautious stance. A major UN agency has cautioned that social media bans have downsides and "could prove counterproductive". The agency highlights that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for isolated youth and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to invest in safety.

Even as this global discussion continues, the actions of the Australian government and its followers demonstrate that governments internationally are increasingly content to delay for platforms to make changes on their own.