🔗 Share this article

Australia's controversial move to restrict social platforms access for individuals under sixteen is sparking debate around the globe. Politicians, safety advocates, and families are monitoring closely to see if this strategy will inspire imitation for other nations.

European Trend

In Europe, a rising number of states are exploring parallel restrictions.

• Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister declaring that mobile devices and apps are "taking away our kids' innocence". The policy is expected to be enacted next year.
• Norway is set to implement a age restriction of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard children from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• Ireland is working on a online verification tool to verify the user details of social media users. Officials have indicated that an Australian-model ban is "one of the tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the president has asked parliament to approve a proposal lifting the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has endorsed a related action, including an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The administration in The Netherlands has recommended guardians to block their kids from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has adopted a non-binding resolution calling for a ban for under-16s unless guardian approval is given. Even though it highlights of the "addictive" nature of these services, the resolution does not create enforceable legislation.

"A strong age restriction is a useful first step," stated a leading MEP behind the initiative.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Eye

In the UK, the administration has remained open to a future ban, emphasizing that "nothing is off the table" but stressing any decision must be "supported by strong research".

Earlier, momentum built behind a proposal to enact limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually modified. However, the administration vowed to further research the matter.

Campaign organizations have voiced warnings. An organization established by the relatives of a teenager who was lost after being exposed to disturbing online content suggests that a simple age ban may not improve online safety and could result in a "cliff edge" of risk when users turn 16.

"This ban is a reaction to the failure of the social media companies to build platforms and apps that are safe and fit for children," said a prominent online safety campaigner.

The US: A Fragmented Picture

In the United States, action is largely occurring at the local level amid federal inaction.

• Utah requires guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has enacted a law banning under-14s from accessing social media, though it is entangled in court battles.
• Virginia has enacted a regulation limiting under-16s to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with additional use dependent on adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also enacted laws mandating adult authorization for teenagers to create social media accounts.

Despite bipartisan support and calls from various politicians to follow Australia's example, a federal ban is currently seen as a distant prospect.

Global Outlook

Outside of these regions, other countries are also considering moves.

• Malaysia plans to prohibit social media for under-16s effective next year.
• Brazil has raised the access age for Instagram to 16.

But, international bodies strike a more measured position. A major UN agency has warned that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "could backfire". The organization highlights that the internet can be a "lifeline" for marginalized youth and that government action should not be a "excuse" for platform operators to improve safety.

As this international discussion unfolds, the policies of the Australian government and several other countries indicate that states internationally are less and less prepared to stand by for platforms to make changes on their own.