🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold move to ban social media access for young people below 16 is sending ripples worldwide. Officials, child protection groups, and families are monitoring with great interest to see if this tactic will inspire imitation for the rest of the world.

European Movement

Throughout Europe, a increasing group of nations are considering parallel measures.

• The Danish government has stated a restriction on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister declaring that mobile devices and platforms are "robbing our youngsters' innocence". Legislation is expected to be passed in the coming year.
• Norway is preparing to implement a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to shield the young from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• The Irish government is introducing a online verification tool to confirm the age and identity of social media users. Authorities have indicated that an Australia-style ban is "an tools on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the president has urged parliament to approve a bill increasing the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In The French government, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has suggested a similar step, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The government in The Netherlands has recommended guardians to restrict their children from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the bloc's legislature has adopted a advisory motion demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 except if a parent decides otherwise is provided. Although it cautions of the "compulsive" nature of these platforms, the resolution does not enact mandatory rules.

"A strong age barrier is a useful first step," stated one MEP driving the resolution.

The UK: A Watchful Eye

For the United Kingdom, the administration has remained open to a possible ban, arguing that "no measure is off the table" but maintaining any action must be "supported by robust research".

Last year, interest gathered behind a proposal to introduce restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually modified. Nonetheless, the government pledged to investigate the matter.

Charities have voiced warnings. A prominent charity established by the loved ones of a young person who died after being exposed to disturbing platform posts contends that a simple age ban might not make platforms safer and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of harm when users become eligible.

"This ban is a reaction to the failure of the Silicon Valley to build products and services that are safe and suitable for young users," commented a influential online safety campaigner.

The US: A Decentralized Picture

Across America, regulation is largely happening at the local level amid national gridlock.

• Utah demands guardian permission for minors to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has signed a measure prohibiting children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it is subject to constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has approved a law capping teenagers to a single hour of social media time per day, with additional access dependent on a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise enacted bills demanding parental consent for under-16s to open social media profiles.

Even with cross-party agreement and calls from various politicians to copy the Australian example, a US-wide ban is presently seen as a distant prospect.

Global Perspectives

Beyond the West, other nations are also exploring options.

• Malaysia aims to ban social media for those under sixteen starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the access age for Instagram to 16.

Yet, international bodies strike a more nuanced stance. Unicef has warned that age-based restrictions pose dangers and "might prove counterproductive". The agency points out that online platforms can be a "critical link" for marginalized youth and that government action should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to prioritize safety.

Even as this global conversation unfolds, the policies of this nation and its followers indicate that states around the world are no longer willing to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.