🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold policy to ban social platforms access for young people below 16 is sparking debate internationally. Officials, child protection groups, and parents are watching intently to see if this tactic will set a precedent for the rest of the world.

Across Europe Momentum

Throughout Europe, a increasing chorus of countries are exploring comparable measures.

• Denmark plans a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM stating that mobile devices and apps are "stealing our youngsters' innocence". A law could be passed soon.
• Norway is preparing to introduce a age restriction of 15, pointing to the need to shield young people from the "power of the algorithms".
• The Irish government is introducing a digital wallet to authenticate the age and identity of social media account holders. Authorities have indicated that an Australian-model ban could be "one of the tools under consideration".
• In Spain, the president has called on parliament to pass a bill increasing the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In The French government, the president has floated the idea of a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has suggested a comparable move, alongside an overnight "internet blackout" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has advised guardians to restrict their children from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the bloc's legislature has passed a non-binding motion calling for a ban for minors without guardian approval is provided. Although it warns of the "compulsive" quality of these apps, the resolution does not create binding law.

"A clear age barrier is a solid foundation," commented the parliamentarian behind the resolution.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Eye

For the United Kingdom, the government has kept open a possible ban, arguing that "no option is being dismissed" but stressing any policy must be "based on robust data".

Previously, momentum gathered behind a proposal to enact controls on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually modified. Instead, the government pledged to further research the issue.

Charities have voiced concerns. One foundation set up by the loved ones of a young person who was lost after viewing dangerous platform posts argues that a simple age ban might not protect children and could lead to a "dangerous transition" of risk when young people turn 16.

"This ban is a response to the inability of the Silicon Valley to create platforms and apps that are secure and suitable for young users," stated a leading peer.

America: A Fragmented Picture

Stateside, legislation is primarily occurring at the state level due to federal stalemate.

• The state of Utah requires guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has enacted a law barring those below 14 from accessing social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has approved a law capping teenagers to a single hour of social media access per day, with extra access needing adult consent.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have similarly enacted measures mandating adult authorization for under-16s to set up social media presences.

Despite widespread concern and proposals from certain politicians to follow the Australian example, a federal ban is right now seen as improbable.

Global Perspectives

Beyond Europe and the US, further states are also exploring options.

• The Malaysian government aims to prohibit social media for those under sixteen beginning next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has increased the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

However, world organizations strike a more nuanced stance. The UN children's agency has warned that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "could have unintended consequences". The body points out that the internet can be a "vital connection" for marginalized children and that government action should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to prioritize child safeguards.

Even as this international debate unfolds, the steps of Australia and several other countries show that policymakers internationally are no longer prepared to wait for platforms to act voluntarily.