🔗 Share this article

The Australian controversial action to restrict social media access for individuals under sixteen is creating waves worldwide. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and parents are watching closely to see if this tactic will become a template for other nations.

European Momentum

Throughout Europe, a increasing number of nations are considering parallel restrictions.

• Denmark plans a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader stating that phones and platforms are "stealing our kids' innocence". A law could be enacted in the coming year.
• Norway is set to introduce a access barrier of 15, citing the need to shield children from the "power of the algorithms".
• The Irish government is developing a digital ID system to authenticate the identity and age of social media users. Officials have indicated that an Australia-style ban could be "a potential measures under consideration".
• In Spain, the prime minister has urged the legislature to approve a law lifting the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has recommended a related step, including an overnight "internet blackout" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The authorities in the Netherlands has recommended families to block their children from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has adopted a non-binding resolution supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 unless guardian approval is granted. Even though it cautions of the "addictive" quality of these services, the step does not establish enforceable legislation.

"An effective age restriction is a useful foundation," stated one parliamentarian supporting the resolution.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Approach

Across Britain, the government has remained open to a potential ban, stating that "no measure is discarded" but maintaining any policy must be "based on strong data".

Earlier, support grew behind a legislative effort to impose restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was ultimately watered down. Nonetheless, the administration vowed to conduct more studies the matter.

Campaign organizations have voiced apprehensions. A prominent charity set up by the loved ones of a young person who took her own life after viewing harmful online content argues that a strict age ban might not protect children and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of harm when teens reach the legal age.

"This ban is a answer to the failure of the Silicon Valley to design products and services that are appropriate and fit for minors," stated a prominent child protection advocate.

The United States: A State-by-State Approach

In the United States, regulation is primarily occurring at the regional level due to national inaction.

• Utah demands adult approval for under-18s to use social media and controls late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a law barring under-14s from accessing social media, though it is subject to court battles.
• Virginia has enacted a law capping minors to one hour of social media time per day, with any further time needing adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also introduced laws mandating parental consent for teenagers to create social media profiles.

Despite bipartisan support and suggestions from certain politicians to follow this path, a nationwide ban is presently seen as unlikely.

International Outlook

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

• The Malaysian government aims to restrict social media for those under sixteen starting from next year.
• Brazil has raised the minimum age for one major platform to 16.

But, world bodies strike a more nuanced stance. Unicef has cautioned that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "might backfire". The body points out that the internet can be a "lifeline" for vulnerable young people and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to improve user protection.

As this international discussion unfolds, the actions of the Australian government and others indicate that states internationally are no longer prepared to wait for the industry to act voluntarily.