🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial action to restrict social platforms access for young people below 16 is sending ripples around the globe. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and families are watching closely to see if this tactic will inspire imitation for other nations.

The European Movement

Throughout Europe, a increasing group of states are considering similar restrictions.

• The Danish government has announced a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the prime minister stating that phones and platforms are "robbing our kids' innocence". A law is expected to be enacted in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is set to enforce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to safeguard children from the "power of the AI".
• Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to confirm the age and identity of social media account holders. The media minister have indicated that an Australian-model ban remains "a potential options under consideration".
• In The Spanish government, the prime minister has urged lawmakers to enact a law increasing the access age for using social media to 16.
• In The French government, the president has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a comparable step, potentially involving an overnight "internet blackout" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The government in the Netherlands has recommended families to prevent their kids from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has passed a symbolic statement demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 unless parental consent is granted. Even though it cautions of the "habit-forming" nature of these services, the step does not create mandatory rules.

"A clear age limit is a useful starting point," commented one parliamentarian driving the resolution.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Approach

For the United Kingdom, the government has not ruled out a potential ban, emphasizing that "nothing is being dismissed" but stressing any policy must be "supported by robust research".

Earlier, interest grew behind a bill to enact restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was ultimately weakened. Instead, the administration pledged to conduct more studies the matter.

Charities have voiced apprehensions. An organization founded by the family of a girl who took her own life after being exposed to dangerous social media material contends that a strict age ban could fail to protect children and could result in a "cliff edge" of exposure when teens reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a response to the refusal of the social media companies to build platforms and apps that are appropriate and suitable for minors," commented a prominent child protection advocate.

The US: A Decentralized Landscape

Across America, regulation is mostly unfolding at the local government level due to national inaction.

• The state of Utah demands parental consent for minors to use social media and restricts overnight use.
• Florida has enacted a measure barring children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it is entangled in court battles.
• Virginia has enacted a rule capping minors to a single hour of social media access per day, with extra use dependent on parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also introduced bills requiring guardian approval for minors to open social media presences.

Despite bipartisan support and proposals from certain politicians to copy the Australian path, a nationwide ban is right now seen as unlikely.

International Views

Beyond these regions, further states are likewise considering moves.

• Malaysia aims to prohibit social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• Brazil has lifted the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

Yet, global bodies adopt a more nuanced stance. A major UN agency has advised that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "might have unintended consequences". The organization highlights that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for marginalized youth and that government action should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to improve child safeguards.

While this global debate evolves, the steps of this nation and its followers indicate that policymakers globally are no longer prepared to wait for the industry to make changes on their own.