🔗 Share this article

Australia's controversial policy to ban social networking access for young people below 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and families are observing with great interest to see if this approach will inspire imitation for other nations.

Across Europe Movement

Throughout Europe, a growing number of nations are moving toward parallel measures.

• Denmark has announced a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader stating that smartphones and networks are "stealing our kids' innocence". A law may be enacted in the coming year.
• Norway is planning to enforce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to shield children from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• The Irish government is working on a online verification tool to authenticate the user details of social media users. The media minister have suggested that an Australian-model ban is "an tools on the table".
• In Spain, the president has called on lawmakers to pass a bill lifting the minimum age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has floated the idea of a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has recommended a comparable move, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has advised parents to restrict their kids from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has passed a symbolic motion supporting a ban for under-16s without guardian approval is granted. Even though it warns of the "compulsive" design of these services, the step does not create enforceable legislation.

"A clear age barrier is a good foundation," stated a leading MEP supporting the measure.

The UK: A Cautious Stance

For the United Kingdom, the leadership has not ruled out a future ban, emphasizing that "no measure is being dismissed" but insisting any policy must be "based on conclusive evidence".

Earlier, interest grew behind a proposal to enact restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately modified. However, the administration committed to conduct more studies the topic.

Campaign organizations have voiced apprehensions. One foundation founded by the relatives of a young person who was lost after encountering disturbing platform posts contends that a strict age ban might not improve online safety and could create a "sudden drop-off" of harm when users turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a answer to the refusal of the tech sector to create tools that are appropriate and suitable for children," commented a leading child protection advocate.

The US: A Decentralized Picture

Stateside, legislation is primarily occurring at the local level due to national stalemate.

• Utah mandates guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has passed a law barring under-14s from creating accounts on social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has passed a law restricting teenagers to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with additional access requiring adult consent.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise introduced bills mandating parental consent for under-16s to create social media profiles.

Despite widespread concern and calls from some individuals to follow this path, a nationwide ban is currently seen as improbable.

Worldwide Views

Beyond the West, further countries are also taking action.

• Malaysia plans to restrict social media for teenagers effective next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has raised the required age for Instagram to 16.

However, global organizations adopt a more nuanced stance. The UN children's agency has advised that social media bans carry risks and "could have unintended consequences". The agency points out that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for marginalized youth and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to improve user protection.

As this global conversation unfolds, the steps of this nation and others demonstrate that policymakers internationally are no longer content to wait for tech companies to act voluntarily.