🔗 Share this article

Australia's decisive action to prohibit social networking access for young people below 16 is creating waves worldwide. Officials, child protection groups, and families are watching closely to see if this tactic will inspire imitation for countries abroad.

European Momentum

Across Europe, a rising number of states are considering parallel restrictions.

• Denmark has announced a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister arguing that phones and networks are "taking away our youngsters' childhood". The policy could be passed in the coming year.
• Norway is preparing to enforce a age restriction of 15, pointing to the need to shield young people from the "influence of the algorithms".
• The Irish government is developing a online verification tool to authenticate the user details of social media account holders. Authorities have indicated that an similar ban is "an tools on the table".
• In Spain, the leader has asked the legislature to approve a bill increasing the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has recommended a similar step, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Dutch government has advised families to prevent their kids from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has passed a non-binding resolution demanding a ban for minors without parental consent is given. Although it highlights of the "addictive" design of these services, the step does not enact mandatory rules.

"An effective age barrier is a good starting point," said the MEP supporting the resolution.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Stance

In the UK, the leadership has remained open to a future ban, arguing that "no option is off the table" but maintaining any policy must be "based on conclusive data".

Previously, support built behind a proposal to enact controls on social media use by minors, but it was in the end watered down. However, the government pledged to conduct more studies the issue.

Campaign organizations have voiced warnings. A prominent charity set up by the family of a teenager who was lost after encountering disturbing online content suggests that a blanket age ban may not improve online safety and could create a "sudden drop-off" of risk when young people become eligible.

"This ban is a answer to the failure of the social media companies to create platforms and apps that are safe and suitable for children," said a prominent peer.

The US: A Fragmented Approach

Stateside, action is primarily occurring at the regional level against a backdrop of federal gridlock.

• Utah mandates adult approval for those under 18 to use social media and controls late-night use.
• Florida has signed a law banning under-14s from joining social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has approved a regulation restricting teenagers to one hour of social media access per day, with additional use dependent on parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also enacted bills demanding guardian approval for teenagers to open social media accounts.

Despite cross-party agreement and calls from certain politicians to follow the Australian path, a federal ban is right now seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Views

Outside of Europe and the US, additional states are similarly considering moves.

• The Malaysian government intends to ban social media for those under sixteen effective next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has raised the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

However, global agencies adopt a more measured tone. Unicef has advised that social media bans pose dangers and "might prove counterproductive". The organization highlights that the internet can be a "lifeline" for marginalized young people and that government action should not be a "excuse" for social media firms to prioritize child safeguards.

Even as this worldwide conversation continues, the actions of Australia and its followers indicate that policymakers internationally are increasingly prepared to wait for platforms to act voluntarily.