🔗 Share this article

The Australian controversial move to restrict social networking access for young people below 16 is creating waves internationally. Politicians, child protection groups, and parents are monitoring closely to see if this strategy will inspire imitation for the rest of the world.

European Momentum

In Europe, a growing number of states are considering parallel bans.

• The Danish government plans a ban on social media for under-15s, with the leader arguing that mobile devices and platforms are "stealing our children's childhood". A law is expected to be formalized soon.
• The Norwegian government is preparing to implement a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to protect young people from the "power of the algorithms".
• Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to confirm the age and identity of social media users. Authorities have stated that an similar ban could be "one of the measures on the table".
• In Spain, the leader has urged lawmakers to enact a bill raising the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has recommended a related action, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The administration in The Dutch government has advised families to prevent their youngsters from social media until 15.

Across the European Union, the EU parliament has approved a advisory statement supporting a ban for minors unless a parent decides otherwise is granted. Even though it cautions of the "compulsive" quality of these apps, the step does not establish binding law.

"A clear age limit is a good starting point," said a leading parliamentarian driving the measure.

The UK: A Watchful Eye

Across Britain, the administration has remained open to a potential ban, emphasizing that "no measure is off the table" but insisting any decision must be "grounded in conclusive evidence".

Last year, momentum gathered behind a legislative effort to impose controls on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately watered down. Nonetheless, the administration pledged to investigate the topic.

Charities have voiced concerns. A prominent charity founded by the family of a teenager who was lost after viewing disturbing platform posts argues that a blanket age ban might not make platforms safer and could create a "dangerous transition" of risk when users become eligible.

"This ban is a answer to the failure of the social media companies to design platforms and apps that are appropriate and age appropriate for minors," said a influential online safety campaigner.

The United States: A Decentralized Picture

In the United States, legislation is primarily happening at the state government level due to national inaction.

• Utah demands parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has passed a measure barring those below 14 from accessing social media, though it faces legal challenges.
• Virginia has enacted a rule restricting minors to 60 minutes of social media time per day, with additional access requiring a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have likewise passed bills requiring adult authorization for teenagers to create social media presences.

Despite bipartisan support and proposals from certain politicians to mimic Australia's lead, a nationwide ban is currently seen as improbable.

International Perspectives

Beyond Europe and the US, further countries are similarly taking action.

• Malaysia plans to ban social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• Brazil has lifted the minimum age for Instagram to 16.

Yet, world organizations adopt a more cautious tone. The UN children's agency has advised that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "could have unintended consequences". The agency points out that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for marginalized children and that bans should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to prioritize user protection.

Even as this global debate evolves, the actions of Australia and others show that policymakers internationally are increasingly content to wait for platforms to act voluntarily.