🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive action to restrict social media access for those under 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Officials, campaigners, and families are observing intently to see if this strategy will become a template for the rest of the world.

European Movement

In Europe, a increasing number of states are exploring similar bans.

• Denmark has announced a restriction on social media for youth below 15, with the PM stating that phones and platforms are "taking away our children's innocence". A law may be enacted in the coming year.
• Norway is planning to implement a age restriction of 15, highlighting the need to shield young people from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• The Irish government is developing a digital wallet to verify the identity and age of social media users. The media minister have stated that an similar ban is "an options on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the president has asked the legislature to approve a law raising the legal age for using social media to 16.
• In The French government, the president has floated the idea of a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has recommended a related step, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The authorities in the Netherlands has urged guardians to restrict their youngsters from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the bloc's legislature has adopted a advisory motion demanding a ban for minors except if parental consent is granted. Even though it highlights of the "compulsive" nature of these platforms, the move does not enact enforceable legislation.

"A strong age barrier is a good first step," said the parliamentarian behind the resolution.

Britain: A Cautious Stance

In the UK, the leadership has not ruled out a possible ban, stating that "no option is off the table" but stressing any policy must be "supported by conclusive data".

Previously, momentum grew behind a bill to enact restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was ultimately watered down. However, the administration vowed to further research the topic.

Charities have voiced concerns. A prominent charity founded by the loved ones of a young person who took her own life after viewing dangerous social media material contends that a simple age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when teens reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the inability of the social media companies to design tools that are safe and age appropriate for children," commented a leading child protection advocate.

The US: A State-by-State Landscape

In the United States, legislation is largely unfolding at the state level against a backdrop of country-wide stalemate.

• Utah requires guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has signed a bill banning those below 14 from joining social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has passed a law limiting teenagers to a single hour of social media access per day, with additional use dependent on a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise passed bills requiring guardian approval for under-16s to create social media accounts.

Despite widespread concern and proposals from certain politicians to follow this example, a US-wide ban is currently seen as a distant prospect.

Global Perspectives

Outside of Europe and the US, other nations are also considering moves.

• Malaysia plans to restrict social media for teenagers effective next year.
• Brazil has increased the minimum age for Instagram to 16.

However, world bodies take a more nuanced position. The UN children's agency has warned that social media bans have downsides and "may even backfire". The body notes that the internet can be a "lifeline" for marginalized children and that government action should not be a "substitute" for social media firms to invest in user protection.

As this international conversation continues, the steps of Australia and others demonstrate that governments internationally are increasingly content to stand by for platforms to self-regulate.