🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold action to restrict social networking access for young people below 16 is sending ripples internationally. Politicians, child protection groups, and families are watching closely to see if this strategy will become a template for the rest of the world.

European Trend

In Europe, a growing group of countries are moving toward parallel restrictions.

• Denmark plans a ban on social media for under-15s, with the PM arguing that smartphones and platforms are "taking away our kids' youth". The policy could be passed in the coming year.
• Norway is preparing to introduce a age restriction of 15, highlighting the need to shield the young from the "manipulative force of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is working on a online verification tool to verify the user details of social media users. Officials have stated that an similar ban remains "one of the options on the table".
• In Spain, the president has asked the legislature to enact a bill lifting the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has recommended a related action, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has urged parents to prevent their kids from social media until 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has adopted a advisory motion demanding a ban for under-16s except if a parent decides otherwise is given. Although it cautions of the "addictive" quality of these services, the move does not establish binding law.

"A strong age restriction is a solid foundation," said the parliamentarian behind the measure.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Approach

For the United Kingdom, the leadership has kept open a possible ban, emphasizing that "nothing is discarded" but stressing any policy must be "grounded in robust data".

Previously, momentum built behind a proposal to impose limits on social media use by minors, but it was eventually modified. However, the administration pledged to conduct more studies the matter.

Campaign organizations have expressed apprehensions. A prominent charity established by the relatives of a teenager who died after encountering disturbing platform posts contends that a strict age ban might not make platforms safer and could lead to a "cliff edge" of harm when young people become eligible.

"The Australian ban is a response to the inability of the tech sector to design tools that are secure and suitable for children," stated a leading peer.

The US: A State-by-State Landscape

In the United States, action is largely occurring at the state level against a backdrop of national inaction.

• Utah mandates parental consent for minors to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has enacted a bill prohibiting those below 14 from joining social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
• The state of Virginia has approved a rule restricting under-16s to a single hour of social media access per day, with extra access dependent on parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise passed laws requiring guardian approval for minors to set up social media presences.

Even with cross-party agreement and suggestions from various figures to follow the Australian path, a US-wide ban is presently seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Views

Apart from the West, other states are also exploring options.

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

Yet, global bodies strike a more nuanced stance. Unicef has warned that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "may even prove counterproductive". The agency highlights that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable youth and that bans should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to prioritize safety.

As this global conversation unfolds, the steps of Australia and several other countries indicate that policymakers globally are less and less willing to stand by for the industry to act voluntarily.