🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold policy to restrict social platforms access for young people below 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Politicians, child protection groups, and guardians are watching with great interest to see if this strategy will become a template for countries abroad.

European Momentum

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

• The Danish government has stated a prohibition on social media for under-15s, with the prime minister declaring that phones and apps are "stealing our kids' youth". Legislation may be enacted next year.
• Norway is planning to implement a access barrier of 15, citing the need to shield young people from the "power of the AI".
• Ireland is developing a online verification tool to confirm the age and identity of social media participants. Authorities have suggested that an Australian-model ban remains "a potential measures under consideration".
• In The Spanish government, the prime minister has asked lawmakers to enact a proposal lifting the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has suggested a related step, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in The Dutch government has urged guardians to block their kids from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has adopted a symbolic resolution demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 unless guardian approval is given. While it cautions of the "compulsive" design of these apps, the move does not create mandatory rules.

"A clear age barrier is a good first step," said a leading MEP supporting the resolution.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Approach

In the UK, the leadership has kept open a potential ban, arguing that "no measure is off the table" but insisting any decision must be "grounded in robust evidence".

Earlier, support grew behind a bill to introduce limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end watered down. Nonetheless, the administration vowed to conduct more studies the matter.

Charities have raised warnings. One foundation set up by the relatives of a young person who was lost after being exposed to disturbing online content argues that a simple age ban could fail to improve online safety and could create a "dangerous transition" of harm when teens become eligible.

"The Australian ban is a answer to the failure of the social media companies to design tools that are safe and age appropriate for young users," stated a prominent online safety campaigner.

America: A State-by-State Picture

In the United States, regulation is largely unfolding at the state level due to federal inaction.

• Utah demands adult approval for minors to use social media and limits overnight use.
• The state of Florida has enacted a law banning under-14s from creating accounts on social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has passed a rule limiting under-16s to 60 minutes of social media access per day, with any further access dependent on adult consent.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly enacted measures requiring adult authorization for under-16s to open social media profiles.

Despite bipartisan support and proposals from various individuals to mimic Australia's example, a federal ban is presently seen as unlikely.

International Perspectives

Outside of the West, other nations are likewise taking action.

• Malaysia intends to prohibit social media for under-16s effective next year.
• Brazil has raised the access age for Instagram to 16.

Yet, global organizations adopt a more nuanced stance. A major UN agency has cautioned that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "could prove counterproductive". The body highlights that the internet can be a "vital connection" for isolated children and that government action should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to prioritize safety.

While this global conversation continues, the steps of Australia and its followers indicate that governments internationally are less and less prepared to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.