🔗 Share this article

Australia's controversial move to restrict social media access for those under 16 is sending ripples internationally. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and guardians are observing with great interest to see if this approach will inspire imitation for countries abroad.

European Trend

In Europe, a increasing group of states are exploring comparable restrictions.

• Denmark plans a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the PM declaring that phones and apps are "taking away our children's youth". The policy is expected to be formalized soon.
• Norway is planning to introduce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to safeguard the young from the "manipulative force of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is introducing a digital ID system to confirm the identity and age of social media participants. The media minister have stated that an similar ban could be "one of the tools in reserve".
• In The Spanish government, the president has called on the legislature to pass a law increasing the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In The French government, the leader has proposed a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has recommended a related step, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has recommended parents to block their kids from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has passed a advisory motion calling for a ban for minors unless guardian approval is granted. Although it highlights of the "addictive" quality of these services, the resolution does not create binding law.

"A clear age limit is a good starting point," commented one MEP behind the initiative.

Britain: A Watchful Eye

Across Britain, the administration has kept open a possible ban, stating that "nothing is discarded" but maintaining any decision must be "grounded in conclusive evidence".

Previously, interest grew behind a proposal to introduce limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end weakened. Instead, the administration committed to further research the matter.

Advocacy groups have raised warnings. A prominent charity established by the family of a teenager who took her own life after viewing harmful social media material suggests that a blanket age ban may not protect children and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when teens become eligible.

"This ban is a reaction to the refusal of the social media companies to create tools that are appropriate and age appropriate for young users," commented a leading child protection advocate.

America: A Fragmented Approach

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

• Utah requires parental consent for under-18s to use social media and restricts overnight use.
• Florida has passed a law banning under-14s from creating accounts on social media, though it faces court battles.
• Virginia has passed a rule limiting under-16s to 60 minutes of social media access per day, with additional access needing a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also enacted laws requiring guardian approval for teenagers to open social media presences.

Despite bipartisan support and calls from some figures to mimic this lead, a nationwide ban is right now seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Outlook

Outside of the West, further states are likewise taking action.

• The Malaysian government aims to restrict social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• Brazil has raised the required age for Instagram to 16.

Yet, world agencies adopt a more measured tone. Unicef has cautioned that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "might prove counterproductive". The agency points out that the internet can be a "vital connection" for isolated young people and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to prioritize child safeguards.

Even as this worldwide debate continues, the actions of the Australian government and several other countries show that governments internationally are less and less prepared to wait for tech companies to make changes on their own.