🔗 Share this article

The Australian controversial action to prohibit social platforms access for those under 16 is creating waves around the globe. Officials, safety advocates, and parents are monitoring with great interest to see if this tactic will inspire imitation for other nations.

European Trend

In Europe, a rising group of nations are moving toward comparable bans.

• Denmark has stated a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the PM stating that phones and apps are "robbing our children's childhood". Legislation may be passed next year.
• Norway is preparing to enforce a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to shield children from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• Ireland is developing a digital ID system to confirm the user details of social media participants. Officials have suggested that an similar ban is "a potential options in reserve".
• In The Spanish government, the president has asked lawmakers to approve a law raising the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the president has proposed a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has endorsed a comparable step, potentially involving an overnight "internet blackout" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in the Netherlands has recommended parents to block their children from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has approved a advisory statement supporting a ban for under-16s without a parent decides otherwise is granted. Even though it warns of the "compulsive" design of these apps, the resolution does not create enforceable legislation.

"A clear age barrier is a good starting point," stated the parliamentarian supporting the measure.

The UK: A Cautious Approach

In the UK, the administration has not ruled out a potential ban, arguing that "no option is being dismissed" but insisting any decision must be "supported by robust evidence".

Previously, support built behind a proposal to impose limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end weakened. Nonetheless, the government committed to conduct more studies the issue.

Campaign organizations have voiced warnings. A prominent charity founded by the loved ones of a girl who was lost after encountering dangerous social media material argues that a blanket age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could result in a "dangerous transition" of risk when young people become eligible.

"The Australian ban is a reaction to the refusal of the tech sector to design products and services that are appropriate and suitable for minors," stated a prominent peer.

The US: A State-by-State Landscape

Across America, regulation is primarily occurring at the regional government level against a backdrop of country-wide inaction.

• Utah demands guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and restricts nighttime use.
• Florida has enacted a law prohibiting under-14s from accessing social media, though it is subject to constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has enacted a rule capping teenagers to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with additional time needing adult consent.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise introduced measures demanding parental consent for under-16s to create social media profiles.

Despite widespread concern and calls from some politicians to follow this path, a federal ban is presently seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Perspectives

Outside of the West, additional states are also exploring options.

• Malaysia plans to ban social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the access age for the platform Instagram to 16.

However, global agencies strike a more measured tone. Unicef has warned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "might prove counterproductive". The body highlights that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for marginalized children and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for platform operators to prioritize safety.

While this international discussion evolves, the policies of this nation and its followers show that governments internationally are increasingly content to wait for platforms to self-regulate.