🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial policy to ban social media access for those under 16 is sending ripples internationally. Politicians, child protection groups, and families are watching closely to see if this strategy will set a precedent for other nations.

European Trend

In Europe, a rising chorus of states are exploring similar restrictions.

• Denmark plans a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the leader declaring that phones and networks are "taking away our kids' innocence". Legislation could be formalized next year.
• Norway is planning to introduce a access barrier of 15, citing the need to safeguard children from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• The Irish government is working on a digital wallet to confirm the user details of social media participants. Authorities have suggested that an similar ban is "one of the tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the leader has called on lawmakers to pass a law lifting the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has suggested a comparable action, potentially involving an overnight "internet blackout" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The government in The Dutch government has advised guardians to prevent their kids from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the bloc's legislature has approved a non-binding statement demanding a ban for under-16s unless guardian approval is given. While it highlights of the "habit-forming" nature of these platforms, the step does not create enforceable legislation.

"An effective age limit is a good first step," said the MEP behind the resolution.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Eye

In the UK, the administration has kept open a possible ban, arguing that "no measure is discarded" but maintaining any policy must be "grounded in strong data".

Earlier, interest built behind a proposal to introduce controls on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually weakened. However, the administration pledged to conduct more studies the issue.

Charities have raised apprehensions. An organization established by the relatives of a teenager who took her own life after being exposed to harmful platform posts argues that a strict age ban might not protect children and could create a "dangerous transition" of risk when young people turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the inability of the Silicon Valley to create platforms and apps that are safe and age appropriate for young users," said a influential peer.

The United States: A Decentralized Approach

In the United States, action is mostly occurring at the local government level amid national gridlock.

• Utah requires guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has passed a measure prohibiting children under fourteen from joining social media, though it is entangled in court battles.
• Virginia has enacted a law restricting minors to 60 minutes of social media access per day, with any further time dependent on adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly enacted bills requiring parental consent for under-16s to open social media profiles.

Despite widespread concern and suggestions from various politicians to follow Australia's path, a federal ban is currently seen as unlikely.

Global Perspectives

Outside of the West, additional countries are likewise exploring options.

• Malaysia intends to prohibit social media for teenagers starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has raised the access age for Instagram to 16.

Yet, international organizations take a more cautious tone. The UN children's agency has advised that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "could prove counterproductive". The organization points out that online platforms can be a "critical link" for isolated children and that government action should not be a "excuse" for social media firms to invest in safety.

As this worldwide debate continues, the policies of the Australian government and others show that governments internationally are no longer willing to stand by for platforms to make changes on their own.