🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold action to restrict social platforms access for those under 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and guardians are watching with great interest to see if this strategy will set a precedent for the rest of the world.

Across Europe Trend

In Europe, a rising chorus of states are moving toward similar restrictions.

• Denmark has stated a ban on social media for under-15s, with the PM declaring that smartphones and platforms are "robbing our youngsters' innocence". A law is expected to be formalized next year.
• Norway is preparing to implement a access barrier of 15, citing the need to safeguard children from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• The Irish government is working on a online verification tool to verify the identity and age of social media users. Officials have suggested that an Australia-style ban is "a potential tools on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the president has urged the legislature to enact a bill lifting the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has recommended a similar step, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The government in the Netherlands has advised parents to block their children from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has approved a advisory motion calling for a ban for minors unless parental consent is given. While it cautions of the "habit-forming" design of these services, the move does not enact mandatory rules.

"A clear age barrier is a useful foundation," stated a leading parliamentarian driving the resolution.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Approach

In the UK, the government has kept open a possible ban, arguing that "no option is discarded" but maintaining any policy must be "grounded in robust data".

Earlier, support built behind a bill to enact restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually modified. Nonetheless, the government committed to conduct more studies the matter.

Advocacy groups have expressed warnings. An organization set up by the family of a girl who died after being exposed to dangerous online content suggests that a simple age ban could fail to improve online safety and could result in a "dangerous transition" of risk when young people turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the refusal of the social media companies to create products and services that are safe and suitable for minors," commented a leading online safety campaigner.

The United States: A Fragmented Picture

Across America, action is primarily unfolding at the local level due to country-wide stalemate.

• Utah requires guardian permission for minors to use social media and limits late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a bill barring under-14s from accessing social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has enacted a law limiting teenagers to one hour of social media use per day, with any further access dependent on a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly passed measures requiring adult authorization for teenagers to create social media profiles.

Even with widespread concern and calls from certain figures to follow the Australian lead, a US-wide ban is right now seen as a distant prospect.

Global Outlook

Outside of Europe and the US, further countries are similarly considering moves.

• Malaysia aims to ban social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has raised the access age for one major platform to 16.

Yet, world agencies strike a more nuanced stance. Unicef has warned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "could backfire". The agency notes that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for vulnerable children and that government action should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to invest in user protection.

As this worldwide conversation unfolds, the actions of Australia and others show that states internationally are increasingly content to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.