🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive policy to restrict social platforms access for those under 16 is creating waves internationally. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and parents are monitoring intently to see if this approach will set a precedent for other nations.

The European Momentum

Across Europe, a growing chorus of nations are moving toward parallel measures.

• Denmark plans a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the leader stating that smartphones and networks are "robbing our children's youth". The policy could be passed in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is set to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to safeguard children from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is developing a online verification tool to verify the age and identity of social media users. Officials have stated that an similar ban is "a potential tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the prime minister has asked parliament to enact a law raising the legal age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a legislative committee has endorsed a comparable move, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in the Netherlands has recommended guardians to prevent their children from social media up to the age of 15.

Across the European Union, the European parliament has approved a advisory statement demanding a ban for minors without guardian approval is provided. While it warns of the "compulsive" nature of these services, the move does not enact enforceable legislation.

"An effective age restriction is a useful starting point," commented one MEP behind the resolution.

Britain: A Watchful Approach

In the UK, the government has kept open a possible ban, emphasizing that "no option is discarded" but insisting any action must be "supported by conclusive research".

Earlier, interest gathered behind a legislative effort to enact controls on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately modified. Nonetheless, the administration pledged to conduct more studies the topic.

Campaign organizations have voiced concerns. An organization founded by the relatives of a teenager who took her own life after viewing dangerous online content argues that a simple age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could result in a "cliff edge" of risk when teens turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a response to the refusal of the Silicon Valley to create products and services that are appropriate and fit for young users," said a prominent peer.

The US: A State-by-State Approach

Stateside, action is largely unfolding at the local government level due to country-wide inaction.

• Utah requires parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and controls late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a law banning those below 14 from joining social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has approved a law limiting minors to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with extra use requiring parental permission.
• The state of Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise introduced bills demanding guardian approval for minors to create social media accounts.

Even with bipartisan support and proposals from certain individuals to mimic Australia's path, a US-wide ban is right now seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Views

Beyond the West, further nations are likewise considering moves.

• Malaysia intends to ban social media for those under sixteen starting from next year.
• Brazil has raised the required age for Instagram to 16.

However, world organizations take a more nuanced stance. A major UN agency has advised that age-based restrictions carry risks and "could have unintended consequences". The body notes that social networks can be a "vital connection" for marginalized children and that bans should not be a "substitute" for social media firms to invest in child safeguards.

While this global conversation evolves, the actions of Australia and several other countries indicate that policymakers internationally are less and less willing to wait for platforms to act voluntarily.