🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold policy to prohibit social platforms access for those under 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Officials, safety advocates, and guardians are watching closely to see if this strategy will inspire imitation for countries abroad.

European Movement

Throughout Europe, a growing number of states are considering comparable bans.

• Denmark has stated a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the PM declaring that smartphones and apps are "stealing our youngsters' youth". Legislation may be passed soon.
• Norway is preparing to implement a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to protect children from the "influence of the algorithms".
• Ireland is working on a digital ID system to verify the identity and age of social media participants. Officials have indicated that an similar ban could be "one of the tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the president has asked the legislature to enact a law increasing the legal age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has endorsed a comparable action, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The government in the Netherlands has urged parents to prevent their children from social media up to the age of 15.

Across the European Union, the European parliament has passed a non-binding motion demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 without parental consent is provided. Even though it highlights of the "compulsive" design of these platforms, the move does not enact enforceable legislation.

"A clear age restriction is a solid first step," commented a leading European lawmaker driving the resolution.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Stance

For the United Kingdom, the administration has remained open to a potential ban, emphasizing that "no measure is being dismissed" but maintaining any decision must be "supported by strong research".

Last year, support built behind a bill to impose restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end modified. Nonetheless, the administration vowed to investigate the matter.

Campaign organizations have voiced warnings. A prominent charity established by the loved ones of a teenager who died after encountering dangerous platform posts contends that a blanket age ban could fail to improve online safety and could create a "cliff edge" of harm when teens become eligible.

"This ban is a reaction to the inability of the tech sector to build products and services that are safe and fit for minors," said a leading online safety campaigner.

The United States: A Fragmented Approach

Across America, regulation is largely unfolding at the regional government level due to national stalemate.

• Utah demands parental consent for minors to use social media and limits late-night use.
• Florida has passed a bill barring those below 14 from creating accounts on social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
• Virginia has approved a rule limiting minors to a single hour of social media time per day, with extra use dependent on parental permission.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise introduced bills requiring guardian approval for under-16s to create social media presences.

Even with bipartisan support and suggestions from certain individuals to mimic this path, a nationwide ban is currently seen as improbable.

Global Views

Outside of Europe and the US, further nations are similarly considering moves.

• Malaysia intends to restrict social media for under-16s effective next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the minimum age for one major platform to 16.

Yet, world organizations take a more measured position. Unicef has advised that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "could prove counterproductive". The body highlights that social networks can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable children and that regulation should not be a "substitute" for social media firms to improve child safeguards.

While this worldwide debate evolves, the steps of Australia and others show that policymakers internationally are increasingly willing to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.