🔗 Share this article

Australia's controversial policy to ban social media access for those under 16 is creating waves worldwide. Politicians, campaigners, and families are monitoring closely to see if this strategy will inspire imitation for the rest of the world.

The European Momentum

Across Europe, a rising number of countries are exploring similar bans.

• Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the prime minister stating that mobile devices and apps are "taking away our children's innocence". The policy may be passed soon.
• Norway is set to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard the young from the "influence of the algorithms".
• Ireland is working on a digital wallet to verify the identity and age of social media participants. Authorities have stated that an Australia-style ban remains "one of the measures under consideration".
• In The Spanish government, the president has asked parliament to enact a bill raising the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the president has floated the idea of a ban for those under fifteen, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a related action, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Dutch government has advised parents to restrict their children from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has adopted a symbolic motion calling for a ban for teenagers under 16 unless a parent decides otherwise is given. Even though it warns of the "habit-forming" nature of these apps, the move does not enact binding law.

"An effective age restriction is a good foundation," stated the European lawmaker behind the initiative.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Eye

In the UK, the government has remained open to a future ban, emphasizing that "nothing is being dismissed" but insisting any action must be "grounded in conclusive evidence".

Previously, support gathered behind a legislative effort to introduce limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was ultimately weakened. Nonetheless, the administration pledged to further research the matter.

Charities have expressed concerns. An organization established by the relatives of a young person who took her own life after being exposed to harmful social media material argues that a blanket age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could result in a "cliff edge" of exposure when users reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a response to the refusal of the tech sector to build tools that are safe and age appropriate for children," said a prominent child protection advocate.

America: A State-by-State Approach

Across America, legislation is largely happening at the state government level against a backdrop of federal inaction.

• The state of Utah demands guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and restricts overnight use.
• Florida has enacted a bill prohibiting those below 14 from joining social media, though it faces court battles.
• Virginia has enacted a law capping under-16s to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with extra time requiring parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also passed laws demanding guardian approval for teenagers to create social media profiles.

Despite bipartisan support and proposals from some politicians to copy Australia's lead, a federal ban is currently seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Views

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

• Malaysia plans to prohibit social media for teenagers starting from next year.
• Brazil has increased the minimum age for Instagram to 16.

Yet, world bodies adopt a more measured tone. A major UN agency has cautioned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "might backfire". The body highlights that social networks can be a "critical link" for isolated children and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to prioritize safety.

Even as this international discussion evolves, the steps of this nation and its followers show that policymakers internationally are less and less willing to wait for platforms to act voluntarily.