🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold policy to restrict social networking access for individuals under sixteen is sparking debate worldwide. Officials, safety advocates, and families are watching intently to see if this strategy will set a precedent for countries abroad.

European Movement

In Europe, a rising number of nations are moving toward similar bans.

• Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for youth below 15, with the leader arguing that phones and networks are "robbing our kids' youth". Legislation is expected to be enacted next year.
• The Norwegian government is preparing to introduce a age restriction of 15, pointing to the need to safeguard young people from the "manipulative force of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is developing a online verification tool to authenticate the identity and age of social media participants. The media minister have stated that an Australia-style ban could be "a potential tools under consideration".
• In Spain, the leader has called on parliament to approve a bill raising the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has proposed a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a comparable move, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The administration in The Netherlands has urged parents to restrict their children from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the EU parliament has passed a non-binding motion demanding a ban for under-16s without guardian approval is given. While it highlights of the "addictive" nature of these apps, the step does not create enforceable legislation.

"A strong age restriction is a solid foundation," stated a leading European lawmaker driving the resolution.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Stance

Across Britain, the leadership has not ruled out a possible ban, emphasizing that "no measure is being dismissed" but maintaining any decision must be "based on conclusive data".

Earlier, support built behind a proposal to introduce controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually modified. Instead, the administration pledged to conduct more studies the issue.

Advocacy groups have voiced concerns. A prominent charity set up by the loved ones of a young person who was lost after being exposed to dangerous online content argues that a simple age ban might not make platforms safer and could lead to a "cliff edge" of harm when teens turn 16.

"This ban is a answer to the inability of the Silicon Valley to build products and services that are safe and age appropriate for minors," commented a prominent online safety campaigner.

America: A Decentralized Picture

In the United States, regulation is largely happening at the state level against a backdrop of federal stalemate.

• The state of Utah demands parental consent for minors to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has passed a bill banning children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
• Virginia has enacted a rule limiting minors to 60 minutes of social media time per day, with additional access needing parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also enacted measures mandating parental consent for minors to set up social media presences.

Even with bipartisan support and calls from various figures to copy this lead, a US-wide ban is currently seen as improbable.

Worldwide Views

Apart from Europe and the US, further nations are likewise exploring options.

• The Malaysian government plans to restrict social media for those under sixteen effective next year.
• Brazil has raised the access age for Instagram to 16.

However, world organizations strike a more nuanced stance. A major UN agency has warned that social media bans have downsides and "may even have unintended consequences". The body highlights that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for marginalized youth and that bans should not be a "excuse" for social media firms to prioritize safety.

As this international discussion evolves, the steps of the Australian government and others indicate that governments globally are less and less willing to wait for the industry to act voluntarily.