🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold policy to prohibit social networking access for those under 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Officials, child protection groups, and parents are observing with great interest to see if this tactic will inspire imitation for other nations.

The European Momentum

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

• Denmark has announced a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister arguing that smartphones and platforms are "robbing our children's innocence". A law could be formalized soon.
• Norway is set to enforce a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to shield the young from the "influence of the algorithms".
• Ireland is introducing a online verification tool to authenticate the age and identity of social media account holders. Officials have suggested that an Australian-model ban is "one of the options under consideration".
• In Spain, the president has urged lawmakers to pass a bill increasing the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In The French government, the head of state has floated the idea of a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has endorsed a related step, including an overnight "internet blackout" for older teenagers.
• The government in The Netherlands has advised families to prevent their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has passed a symbolic statement supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 except if a parent decides otherwise is given. Although it cautions of the "addictive" quality of these platforms, the step does not establish mandatory rules.

"A strong age limit is a useful first step," stated one European lawmaker supporting the resolution.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Stance

In the UK, the administration has kept open a future ban, arguing that "nothing is being dismissed" but insisting any policy must be "supported by strong data".

Last year, support grew behind a proposal to impose limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was ultimately watered down. Instead, the government committed to investigate the issue.

Advocacy groups have raised concerns. An organization founded by the family of a girl who took her own life after encountering disturbing social media material argues that a simple age ban might not improve online safety and could create a "dangerous transition" of harm when teens turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a response to the failure of the social media companies to build platforms and apps that are secure and suitable for children," said a leading peer.

America: A Fragmented Approach

In the United States, action is primarily occurring at the state level due to national stalemate.

• Utah requires parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• Florida has signed a bill banning those below 14 from accessing social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
• The state of Virginia has enacted a regulation restricting teenagers to 60 minutes of social media access per day, with extra access dependent on a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise enacted measures mandating adult authorization for under-16s to open social media accounts.

Despite widespread concern and calls from certain figures to follow the Australian example, a federal ban is right now seen as unlikely.

International Outlook

Beyond these regions, additional countries are also considering moves.

• Malaysia plans to restrict social media for under-16s effective next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the access age for Instagram to 16.

Yet, global agencies strike a more cautious position. A major UN agency has warned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "may even have unintended consequences". The agency points out that online platforms can be a "critical link" for isolated children and that bans should not be a "substitute" for social media firms to prioritize safety.

As this global debate evolves, the policies of this nation and its followers demonstrate that governments internationally are no longer willing to delay for tech companies to act voluntarily.