🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold policy to prohibit social networking access for young people below 16 is sparking debate internationally. Lawmakers, campaigners, and parents are monitoring closely to see if this tactic will set a precedent for countries abroad.

European Movement

Across Europe, a increasing number of states are considering parallel bans.

• The Danish government plans a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM stating that smartphones and networks are "stealing our children's youth". A law is expected to be passed next year.
• Norway is preparing to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, pointing to the need to protect children from the "influence of the algorithms".
• The Irish government is developing a online verification tool to confirm the user details of social media participants. Officials have suggested that an similar ban could be "an tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the prime minister has urged the legislature to approve a law increasing the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has endorsed a similar step, alongside an overnight "internet blackout" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The authorities in The Dutch government has advised parents to restrict their children from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the bloc's legislature has passed a symbolic resolution calling for a ban for under-16s unless guardian approval is provided. While it cautions of the "addictive" nature of these platforms, the step does not establish mandatory rules.

"A clear age barrier is a good foundation," commented the MEP supporting the resolution.

The United Kingdom: A Cautious Approach

For the United Kingdom, the leadership has not ruled out a potential ban, arguing that "no measure is off the table" but stressing any decision must be "supported by strong research".

Previously, interest grew behind a legislative effort to impose restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was in the end watered down. Instead, the administration pledged to further research the issue.

Campaign organizations have voiced concerns. An organization established by the family of a young person who died after viewing dangerous platform posts contends that a blanket age ban might not make platforms safer and could create a "dangerous transition" of risk when teens reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a response to the refusal of the tech sector to create tools that are safe and suitable for young users," commented a influential child protection advocate.

The United States: A Fragmented Approach

Stateside, regulation is mostly occurring at the regional level due to federal inaction.

• The state of Utah mandates parental consent for minors to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• Florida has enacted a bill banning children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it is subject to court battles.
• The state of Virginia has enacted a law limiting under-16s to a single hour of social media time per day, with additional use needing adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also enacted laws demanding guardian approval for minors to create social media presences.

Despite bipartisan support and calls from some politicians to follow this lead, a nationwide ban is presently seen as unlikely.

International Views

Beyond the West, further nations are similarly taking action.

• The Malaysian government intends to restrict social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• Brazil has lifted the access age for the platform Instagram to 16.

However, world agencies adopt a more measured position. The UN children's agency has advised that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "could backfire". The body points out that social networks can be a "vital connection" for isolated children and that government action should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to prioritize safety.

As this worldwide discussion continues, the actions of this nation and others indicate that governments internationally are no longer willing to stand by for tech companies to make changes on their own.