🔗 Share this article

Australia's controversial action to ban social media access for those under 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and families are observing closely to see if this approach will set a precedent for the rest of the world.

The European Movement

In Europe, a growing group of nations are considering parallel measures.

• The Danish government has stated a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader stating that smartphones and apps are "stealing our kids' childhood". Legislation could be passed in the coming year.
• Norway is set to introduce a age restriction of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard children from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to verify the identity and age of social media account holders. Officials have suggested that an similar ban could be "a potential tools under consideration".
• In Spain, the leader has urged lawmakers to pass a proposal increasing the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has proposed a ban for under-15s, and a legislative committee has suggested a related action, alongside an overnight "internet blackout" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Dutch government has advised guardians to block their kids from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has approved a advisory statement demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 except if parental consent is given. While it highlights of the "addictive" quality of these apps, the move does not establish mandatory rules.

"A strong age limit is a good first step," said a leading parliamentarian behind the initiative.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Approach

For the United Kingdom, the administration has kept open a future ban, stating that "nothing is discarded" but insisting any policy must be "supported by conclusive data".

Last year, support grew behind a bill to introduce limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually watered down. Nonetheless, the government pledged to investigate the issue.

Charities have raised apprehensions. One foundation set up by the loved ones of a teenager who was lost after being exposed to disturbing platform posts suggests that a simple age ban may not improve online safety and could result in a "cliff edge" of risk when teens become eligible.

"This ban is a reaction to the refusal of the social media companies to create tools that are secure and suitable for children," said a influential online safety campaigner.

The US: A Fragmented Landscape

In the United States, action is mostly happening at the state level against a backdrop of country-wide stalemate.

• Utah demands guardian permission for minors to use social media and restricts overnight use.
• Florida has passed a bill barring children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has enacted a law restricting minors to one hour of social media use per day, with extra access needing adult consent.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have likewise passed bills mandating guardian approval for under-16s to open social media presences.

Even with widespread concern and proposals from certain individuals to mimic this path, a US-wide ban is right now seen as a distant prospect.

International Perspectives

Apart from these regions, further states are likewise exploring options.

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

But, global organizations take a more measured tone. Unicef has cautioned that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "may even have unintended consequences". The body notes that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for marginalized young people and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to prioritize child safeguards.

While this international discussion continues, the steps of this nation and others show that governments internationally are increasingly willing to delay for platforms to make changes on their own.