🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold move to ban social platforms access for those under 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and guardians are observing closely to see if this strategy will set a precedent for other nations.

Across Europe Movement

In Europe, a growing group of nations are considering comparable measures.

• Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister stating that mobile devices and platforms are "stealing our youngsters' youth". The policy may be passed in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is planning to introduce a age restriction of 15, highlighting the need to shield the young from the "influence of the AI".
• Ireland is developing a online verification tool to confirm the age and identity of social media users. The media minister have suggested that an Australian-model ban remains "one of the tools under consideration".
• In Spain, the president has called on the legislature to pass a law raising the legal age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has recommended a comparable move, potentially involving an overnight "internet blackout" for adolescents.
• The authorities in the Netherlands has urged guardians to prevent their kids from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the EU parliament has passed a advisory statement demanding a ban for minors unless guardian approval is given. Even though it warns of the "addictive" nature of these apps, the move does not establish binding law.

"A strong age barrier is a useful starting point," commented a leading parliamentarian supporting the initiative.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Eye

In the UK, the administration has remained open to a possible ban, arguing that "no option is discarded" but insisting any policy must be "based on conclusive data".

Last year, interest grew behind a proposal to enact restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately watered down. Instead, the government committed to further research the matter.

Advocacy groups have raised warnings. One foundation founded by the family of a girl who took her own life after being exposed to harmful social media material suggests that a simple age ban could fail to improve online safety and could lead to a "dangerous transition" of risk when young people reach the legal age.

"This ban is a answer to the inability of the Silicon Valley to build products and services that are secure and suitable for children," stated a influential online safety campaigner.

The United States: A Fragmented Approach

Across America, action is mostly occurring at the regional level amid federal stalemate.

• The state of Utah requires adult approval for those under 18 to use social media and controls late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a bill banning under-14s from joining social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has passed a rule restricting teenagers to one hour of social media use per day, with extra use needing parental permission.
• The state of Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise passed bills demanding adult authorization for teenagers to set up social media accounts.

Despite cross-party agreement and suggestions from certain figures to follow this example, a federal ban is currently seen as unlikely.

International Outlook

Apart from Europe and the US, additional states are similarly taking action.

• Malaysia aims to prohibit social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has increased the minimum age for the platform Instagram to 16.

Yet, international agencies adopt a more measured position. A major UN agency has warned that age-based restrictions have downsides and "might have unintended consequences". The agency highlights that the internet can be a "lifeline" for isolated young people and that government action should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to prioritize user protection.

While this worldwide debate evolves, the steps of the Australian government and its followers indicate that governments globally are no longer willing to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.