🔗 Share this article

Australia's controversial action to restrict social networking access for those under 16 is sending ripples internationally. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and parents are monitoring intently to see if this tactic will inspire imitation for other nations.

European Movement

In Europe, a rising group of countries are exploring comparable measures.

• Denmark plans a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader stating that smartphones and networks are "stealing our children's childhood". A law could be formalized next year.
• Norway is preparing to enforce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to shield children from the "influence of the algorithms".
• Ireland is developing a digital ID system to verify the user details of social media users. The media minister have stated that an Australian-model ban is "an options in reserve".
• In Spain, the prime minister has asked the legislature to enact a proposal raising the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a comparable action, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in The Dutch government has recommended guardians to block their children from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has passed a advisory motion calling for a ban for teenagers under 16 unless parental consent is given. While it highlights of the "addictive" design of these platforms, the move does not create mandatory rules.

"A strong age limit is a useful first step," stated the MEP behind the measure.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Approach

Across Britain, the government has remained open to a possible ban, emphasizing that "no option is being dismissed" but stressing any policy must be "supported by robust research".

Last year, support gathered behind a bill to introduce controls on social media use by minors, but it was in the end watered down. Nonetheless, the government committed to investigate the matter.

Advocacy groups have voiced apprehensions. An organization established by the relatives of a girl who took her own life after being exposed to harmful online content suggests that a blanket age ban may not protect children and could lead to a "dangerous transition" of harm when teens become eligible.

"This ban is a response to the failure of the social media companies to build platforms and apps that are secure and age appropriate for young users," commented a leading child protection advocate.

The United States: A Fragmented Landscape

Stateside, regulation is largely occurring at the regional level against a backdrop of federal inaction.

• Utah demands guardian permission for minors to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has enacted a law banning those below 14 from accessing social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has passed a rule restricting minors to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with extra access dependent on a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly passed laws demanding parental consent for minors to set up social media profiles.

Even with cross-party agreement and proposals from some politicians to mimic this lead, a federal ban is right now seen as improbable.

Worldwide Views

Apart from these regions, other states are similarly considering moves.

• Malaysia aims to prohibit social media for teenagers effective next year.
• Brazil has raised the minimum age for one major platform to 16.

However, international organizations adopt a more nuanced tone. A major UN agency has cautioned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "could have unintended consequences". The agency points out that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for vulnerable children and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to prioritize safety.

While this worldwide debate unfolds, the policies of this nation and several other countries demonstrate that governments internationally are less and less willing to wait for tech companies to make changes on their own.