🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial action to prohibit social networking access for those under 16 is sparking debate internationally. Politicians, child protection groups, and families are observing intently to see if this approach will set a precedent for countries abroad.

European Trend

Across Europe, a growing chorus of states are moving toward comparable restrictions.

• Denmark plans a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the leader declaring that mobile devices and platforms are "taking away our youngsters' childhood". A law may be formalized soon.
• Norway is preparing to introduce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to safeguard the young from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• Ireland is introducing a online verification tool to authenticate the identity and age of social media account holders. Authorities have suggested that an similar ban is "one of the tools on the table".
• In Spain, the prime minister has asked the legislature to enact a proposal raising the minimum age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the president has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has suggested a comparable step, potentially involving an overnight "internet blackout" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The authorities in the Netherlands has advised guardians to restrict their children from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has passed a advisory motion calling for a ban for minors unless a parent decides otherwise is granted. Even though it cautions of the "addictive" quality of these apps, the step does not enact binding law.

"An effective age limit is a useful foundation," commented one European lawmaker behind the measure.

The UK: A Watchful Approach

For the United Kingdom, the government has kept open a potential ban, stating that "nothing is being dismissed" but insisting any decision must be "grounded in strong research".

Last year, support gathered behind a bill to introduce limits on social media use by minors, but it was eventually weakened. Instead, the government vowed to conduct more studies the matter.

Advocacy groups have voiced concerns. One foundation set up by the relatives of a young person who died after viewing dangerous platform posts argues that a blanket age ban might not improve online safety and could result in a "sudden drop-off" of harm when users turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a response to the failure of the social media companies to design tools that are appropriate and age appropriate for minors," stated a influential child protection advocate.

America: A State-by-State Approach

Stateside, action is mostly unfolding at the regional level against a backdrop of country-wide gridlock.

• The state of Utah demands adult approval for those under 18 to use social media and limits overnight use.
• The state of Florida has enacted a bill banning under-14s from accessing social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
• Virginia has enacted a rule capping under-16s to one hour of social media access per day, with any further access needing parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also enacted measures mandating adult authorization for teenagers to open social media presences.

Despite cross-party agreement and proposals from some figures to follow the Australian lead, a US-wide ban is right now seen as unlikely.

International Outlook

Apart from Europe and the US, other states are similarly considering moves.

• Malaysia intends to restrict social media for under-16s effective next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has raised the access age for the platform Instagram to 16.

However, international organizations take a more measured position. A major UN agency has cautioned that age-based restrictions pose dangers and "might backfire". The organization highlights that the internet can be a "vital connection" for isolated youth and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to improve user protection.

While this global debate unfolds, the steps of the Australian government and its followers show that governments internationally are less and less willing to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.