🔗 Share this article

The Australian decisive action to restrict social platforms access for those under 16 is sending ripples around the globe. Officials, child protection groups, and families are monitoring intently to see if this approach will become a template for other nations.

The European Momentum

Throughout Europe, a increasing group of states are exploring parallel measures.

• The Danish government has announced a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader stating that mobile devices and platforms are "taking away our youngsters' innocence". A law is expected to be enacted in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is preparing to enforce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to protect young people from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• The Irish government is working on a digital ID system to confirm the user details of social media users. Authorities have suggested that an similar ban is "one of the tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the president has asked the legislature to approve a law lifting the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has suggested a related step, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The administration in The Netherlands has recommended families to prevent their kids from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has approved a non-binding motion demanding a ban for under-16s unless parental consent is given. Although it highlights of the "addictive" quality of these platforms, the move does not establish mandatory rules.

"An effective age barrier is a useful starting point," said the parliamentarian behind the initiative.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Approach

For the United Kingdom, the administration has kept open a possible ban, arguing that "no option is being dismissed" but insisting any policy must be "grounded in robust data".

Earlier, support grew behind a legislative effort to enact restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was ultimately modified. Instead, the administration pledged to investigate the issue.

Charities have expressed warnings. A prominent charity set up by the family of a girl who was lost after being exposed to disturbing platform posts contends that a simple age ban could fail to protect children and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of risk when young people reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a response to the refusal of the tech sector to design products and services that are secure and suitable for minors," stated a influential online safety campaigner.

The US: A Fragmented Landscape

Across America, action is primarily occurring at the regional level due to national gridlock.

• The state of Utah mandates adult approval for minors to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• Florida has passed a law barring children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it is subject to constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has passed a regulation restricting under-16s to a single hour of social media time per day, with extra use requiring a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly introduced bills requiring adult authorization for under-16s to set up social media accounts.

Despite cross-party agreement and calls from some politicians to copy the Australian example, a US-wide ban is right now seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Views

Apart from Europe and the US, additional countries are similarly considering moves.

• Malaysia plans to restrict social media for teenagers starting from next year.
• Brazil has lifted the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

However, world bodies adopt a more measured position. The UN children's agency has cautioned that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "might have unintended consequences". The agency highlights that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for isolated youth and that government action should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to invest in user protection.

As this worldwide discussion unfolds, the steps of Australia and its followers demonstrate that states internationally are no longer content to wait for tech companies to make changes on their own.