🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial move to prohibit social networking access for individuals under sixteen is sparking debate internationally. Politicians, child protection groups, and families are observing with great interest to see if this tactic will set a precedent for countries abroad.

The European Momentum

Throughout Europe, a rising group of states are exploring similar bans.

• The Danish government has announced a prohibition on social media for under-15s, with the prime minister stating that mobile devices and platforms are "robbing our youngsters' innocence". The policy may be passed next year.
• Norway is preparing to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to shield children from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• The Irish government is working on a online verification tool to verify the identity and age of social media users. Authorities have indicated that an Australian-model ban remains "one of the tools on the table".
• In Spain, the prime minister has urged lawmakers to pass a proposal increasing the legal age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has suggested a similar step, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in the Netherlands has advised families to block their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has approved a non-binding motion calling for a ban for minors except if a parent decides otherwise is given. Although it highlights of the "addictive" nature of these platforms, the resolution does not establish mandatory rules.

"A strong age restriction is a solid foundation," stated the parliamentarian supporting the measure.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Approach

In the UK, the leadership has remained open to a potential ban, arguing that "nothing is being dismissed" but maintaining any decision must be "supported by conclusive evidence".

Previously, support grew behind a legislative effort to impose restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was in the end weakened. Nonetheless, the government committed to conduct more studies the issue.

Charities have expressed concerns. A prominent charity set up by the relatives of a teenager who died after being exposed to disturbing online content suggests that a blanket age ban may not improve online safety and could result in a "dangerous transition" of risk when teens turn 16.

"This ban is a response to the inability of the Silicon Valley to build platforms and apps that are secure and fit for young users," commented a prominent child protection advocate.

The United States: A Fragmented Approach

Across America, action is mostly happening at the regional level due to federal inaction.

• Utah mandates parental consent for under-18s to use social media and restricts nighttime use.
• Florida has signed a law banning children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has passed a rule capping under-16s to 60 minutes of social media access per day, with additional use requiring a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise introduced bills mandating guardian approval for minors to set up social media accounts.

Even with bipartisan support and proposals from various figures to follow this lead, a nationwide ban is presently seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Outlook

Apart from Europe and the US, additional nations are likewise considering moves.

• Malaysia aims to prohibit social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• Brazil has raised the access age for the platform Instagram to 16.

But, global bodies strike a more nuanced tone. Unicef has warned that age-based restrictions carry risks and "might prove counterproductive". The agency notes that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for marginalized young people and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to prioritize child safeguards.

As this international debate unfolds, the steps of the Australian government and its followers indicate that policymakers globally are less and less prepared to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.