🔗 Share this article

The Australian bold move to ban social media access for those under 16 is sending ripples worldwide. Lawmakers, campaigners, and guardians are observing with great interest to see if this approach will set a precedent for countries abroad.

European Momentum

Across Europe, a increasing group of states are exploring similar measures.

• Denmark has stated a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader stating that mobile devices and networks are "stealing our youngsters' youth". Legislation may be formalized next year.
• Norway is preparing to introduce a access barrier of 15, citing the need to shield young people from the "influence of the algorithms".
• Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to verify the age and identity of social media users. The media minister have stated that an Australia-style ban is "an options on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the leader has urged lawmakers to enact a law lifting the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the president has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has recommended a comparable step, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for older teenagers.
• The administration in The Netherlands has advised guardians to block their kids from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has adopted a advisory motion supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 without a parent decides otherwise is given. Although it warns of the "compulsive" quality of these apps, the move does not establish mandatory rules.

"A clear age limit is a useful foundation," stated a leading parliamentarian supporting the measure.

The UK: A Watchful Stance

Across Britain, the government has remained open to a possible ban, stating that "nothing is discarded" but insisting any decision must be "grounded in conclusive research".

Earlier, support built behind a proposal to enact limits on social media use by minors, but it was eventually modified. Nonetheless, the administration committed to further research the matter.

Campaign organizations have raised concerns. One foundation established by the loved ones of a girl who was lost after being exposed to dangerous platform posts suggests that a simple age ban may not make platforms safer and could lead to a "cliff edge" of exposure when users turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the inability of the Silicon Valley to design products and services that are appropriate and age appropriate for young users," commented a prominent child protection advocate.

The United States: A State-by-State Landscape

In the United States, legislation is largely happening at the local level due to federal gridlock.

• Utah demands adult approval for those under 18 to use social media and controls late-night use.
• The state of Florida has passed a law banning those below 14 from joining social media, though it is entangled in court battles.
• Virginia has enacted a rule limiting under-16s to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with any further access dependent on adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise passed bills requiring guardian approval for teenagers to create social media presences.

Despite cross-party agreement and calls from some figures to follow Australia's path, a federal ban is right now seen as a distant prospect.

Global Outlook

Outside of Europe and the US, other states are likewise considering moves.

• Malaysia plans to restrict social media for under-16s effective next year.
• Brazil has increased the required age for one major platform to 16.

Yet, international organizations adopt a more cautious position. A major UN agency has warned that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "may even have unintended consequences". The organization highlights that online platforms can be a "critical link" for isolated young people and that government action should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to improve safety.

While this worldwide conversation evolves, the actions of Australia and others demonstrate that policymakers internationally are increasingly willing to delay for platforms to act voluntarily.