🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial action to restrict social platforms access for individuals under sixteen is creating waves worldwide. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and guardians are watching with great interest to see if this strategy will become a template for other nations.

European Momentum

Across Europe, a increasing group of states are exploring parallel restrictions.

• Denmark has announced a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM stating that phones and apps are "taking away our kids' innocence". The policy may be formalized in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is preparing to introduce a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard young people from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to confirm the user details of social media users. Authorities have suggested that an Australia-style ban could be "one of the options on the table".
• In Spain, the prime minister has urged lawmakers to approve a proposal raising the legal age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has suggested a related move, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The government in The Netherlands has urged parents to restrict their children from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has approved a symbolic motion supporting a ban for under-16s unless parental consent is provided. Even though it cautions of the "addictive" quality of these platforms, the step does not create mandatory rules.

"A strong age barrier is a good first step," commented one MEP behind the initiative.

The United Kingdom: A Cautious Approach

In the UK, the government has kept open a future ban, emphasizing that "no option is off the table" but insisting any policy must be "supported by robust research".

Previously, momentum gathered behind a bill to introduce limits on social media use by minors, but it was eventually modified. Nonetheless, the administration vowed to further research the topic.

Campaign organizations have voiced concerns. One foundation established by the relatives of a young person who was lost after encountering disturbing platform posts suggests that a blanket age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could create a "sudden drop-off" of harm when teens turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a answer to the refusal of the social media companies to build products and services that are secure and suitable for minors," stated a influential peer.

The US: A Fragmented Landscape

Across America, action is largely unfolding at the local government level amid national inaction.

• Utah demands parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and restricts overnight use.
• Florida has passed a bill banning those below 14 from creating accounts on social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has passed a law restricting teenagers to one hour of social media access per day, with any further time dependent on parental permission.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have also enacted laws requiring guardian approval for under-16s to set up social media profiles.

Despite widespread concern and suggestions from various politicians to copy the Australian example, a US-wide ban is presently seen as improbable.

Worldwide Perspectives

Apart from the West, additional nations are similarly considering moves.

• The Malaysian government plans to prohibit social media for under-16s effective next year.
• Brazil has increased the minimum age for Instagram to 16.

However, global agencies adopt a more cautious position. Unicef has warned that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "may even backfire". The agency points out that social networks can be a "lifeline" for marginalized young people and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for platform operators to improve user protection.

Even as this worldwide discussion evolves, the actions of this nation and its followers demonstrate that states globally are less and less prepared to delay for platforms to act voluntarily.