🔗 Share this article

The Australian decisive action to ban social networking access for those under 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and guardians are observing closely to see if this approach will set a precedent for the rest of the world.

The European Movement

In Europe, a rising chorus of nations are exploring comparable bans.

• The Danish government has announced a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader declaring that mobile devices and networks are "robbing our children's childhood". A law is expected to be formalized in the coming year.
• Norway is set to introduce a age restriction of 15, citing the need to shield children from the "power of the algorithms".
• Ireland is working on a digital ID system to authenticate the age and identity of social media users. The media minister have stated that an Australian-model ban remains "an tools under consideration".
• In The Spanish government, the president has called on parliament to enact a law lifting the minimum age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a related move, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has recommended guardians to prevent their youngsters from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has passed a symbolic motion demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 without parental consent is granted. Although it cautions of the "addictive" design of these services, the step does not create binding law.

"An effective age barrier is a useful starting point," commented a leading MEP driving the measure.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Approach

For the United Kingdom, the administration has remained open to a possible ban, stating that "no measure is discarded" but insisting any decision must be "grounded in robust data".

Previously, support grew behind a proposal to enact restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately weakened. However, the government vowed to investigate the topic.

Advocacy groups have expressed warnings. One foundation founded by the family of a teenager who died after encountering dangerous social media material contends that a simple age ban could fail to improve online safety and could create a "sudden drop-off" of risk when users reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the failure of the social media companies to create platforms and apps that are appropriate and fit for minors," said a leading child protection advocate.

America: A Fragmented Picture

Stateside, regulation is largely occurring at the state government level against a backdrop of federal gridlock.

• Utah requires adult approval for minors to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a measure barring those below 14 from joining social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has approved a rule restricting under-16s to a single hour of social media use per day, with additional access requiring parental permission.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly enacted laws mandating adult authorization for teenagers to open social media presences.

Even with bipartisan support and suggestions from various figures to mimic Australia's example, a federal ban is presently seen as improbable.

International Views

Beyond the West, other nations are also considering moves.

• Malaysia plans to restrict social media for teenagers effective next year.
• Brazil has raised the required age for Instagram to 16.

However, global agencies strike a more measured tone. Unicef has cautioned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "could prove counterproductive". The agency points out that social networks can be a "critical link" for marginalized children and that regulation should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to invest in user protection.

Even as this global conversation evolves, the actions of the Australian government and several other countries indicate that governments internationally are less and less content to delay for tech companies to make changes on their own.