🔗 Share this article

The Australian decisive policy to ban social media access for those under 16 is sending ripples internationally. Politicians, safety advocates, and parents are watching intently to see if this tactic will become a template for other nations.

Across Europe Momentum

Throughout Europe, a increasing group of nations are exploring comparable restrictions.

• Denmark plans a ban on social media for under-15s, with the prime minister stating that mobile devices and networks are "robbing our children's innocence". A law may be passed in the coming year.
• Norway is set to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to protect children from the "power of the AI".
• The Irish government is working on a online verification tool to confirm the age and identity of social media participants. Authorities have suggested that an Australian-model ban remains "one of the options on the table".
• In Spain, the prime minister has urged parliament to enact a law raising the legal age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has suggested a similar move, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The government in the Netherlands has urged parents to block their kids from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the EU parliament has adopted a symbolic statement calling for a ban for under-16s unless parental consent is given. Although it warns of the "addictive" nature of these platforms, the resolution does not establish mandatory rules.

"An effective age restriction is a good starting point," said one parliamentarian behind the resolution.

The United Kingdom: A Watchful Approach

For the United Kingdom, the government has kept open a future ban, arguing that "nothing is off the table" but insisting any policy must be "supported by conclusive data".

Previously, interest built behind a bill to enact limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was ultimately modified. However, the government vowed to investigate the matter.

Campaign organizations have voiced concerns. One foundation established by the loved ones of a teenager who was lost after encountering harmful platform posts contends that a blanket age ban could fail to protect children and could lead to a "dangerous transition" of risk when users turn 16.

"This ban is a reaction to the refusal of the Silicon Valley to create platforms and apps that are appropriate and age appropriate for young users," stated a prominent peer.

America: A Decentralized Landscape

Stateside, action is largely occurring at the regional level against a backdrop of country-wide gridlock.

• Utah mandates guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and limits late-night use.
• Florida has signed a measure barring children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has passed a law restricting teenagers to a single hour of social media access per day, with additional access requiring a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also passed laws requiring parental consent for under-16s to create social media presences.

Despite widespread concern and proposals from some politicians to follow Australia's lead, a US-wide ban is currently seen as unlikely.

International Perspectives

Outside of these regions, further states are also considering moves.

• The Malaysian government plans to ban social media for teenagers effective next year.
• Brazil has increased the access age for one major platform to 16.

But, global organizations take a more measured position. Unicef has advised that age-based restrictions have downsides and "might backfire". The organization notes that the internet can be a "critical link" for vulnerable youth and that bans should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to improve safety.

As this global conversation evolves, the actions of this nation and its followers demonstrate that states internationally are less and less content to stand by for platforms to make changes on their own.