🔗 Share this article

The Australian decisive action to restrict social media access for those under 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Officials, safety advocates, and parents are monitoring closely to see if this strategy will become a template for the rest of the world.

The European Momentum

Across Europe, a rising number of nations are moving toward parallel bans.

• Denmark plans a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister stating that phones and platforms are "stealing our kids' youth". A law is expected to be enacted soon.
• The Norwegian government is planning to implement a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to protect the young from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to authenticate the identity and age of social media participants. Officials have indicated that an similar ban remains "a potential measures under consideration".
• In Spain, the prime minister has called on parliament to enact a bill increasing the access age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has proposed a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has suggested a similar move, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The government in the Netherlands has recommended guardians to restrict their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has adopted a advisory statement demanding a ban for minors unless guardian approval is granted. While it warns of the "addictive" quality of these platforms, the move does not establish binding law.

"A clear age barrier is a useful first step," said a leading MEP behind the initiative.

Britain: A Cautious Stance

In the UK, the administration has remained open to a future ban, emphasizing that "no option is being dismissed" but maintaining any policy must be "supported by robust research".

Previously, support grew behind a proposal to introduce restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end watered down. Nonetheless, the government pledged to conduct more studies the matter.

Campaign organizations have raised apprehensions. An organization established by the relatives of a teenager who died after viewing disturbing online content contends that a blanket age ban may not improve online safety and could result in a "cliff edge" of exposure when young people turn 16.

"This ban is a answer to the inability of the tech sector to design products and services that are secure and age appropriate for children," stated a influential online safety campaigner.

The United States: A Decentralized Approach

In the United States, regulation is mostly occurring at the regional level due to national stalemate.

• Utah requires parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and limits overnight use.
• Florida has enacted a law banning under-14s from joining social media, though it is subject to constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has approved a law limiting teenagers to one hour of social media access per day, with additional time dependent on adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have also introduced measures mandating parental consent for teenagers to set up social media accounts.

Despite cross-party agreement and suggestions from some politicians to mimic Australia's path, a US-wide ban is currently seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Outlook

Beyond these regions, further countries are likewise exploring options.

• Malaysia aims to restrict social media for teenagers starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has increased the required age for Instagram to 16.

Yet, global agencies take a more cautious stance. A major UN agency has advised that social media bans have downsides and "may even backfire". The agency highlights that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for vulnerable young people and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to invest in user protection.

Even as this global discussion continues, the steps of the Australian government and others indicate that states internationally are no longer prepared to wait for platforms to act voluntarily.