🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold move to prohibit social networking access for individuals under sixteen is sparking debate internationally. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and guardians are watching closely to see if this approach will set a precedent for other nations.

The European Momentum

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

• Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for youth below 15, with the leader stating that smartphones and networks are "taking away our children's innocence". Legislation may be passed next year.
• The Norwegian government is set to enforce a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard children from the "power of the algorithms".
• Ireland is working on a digital ID system to confirm the user details of social media participants. The media minister have suggested that an Australia-style ban is "a potential tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the president has urged lawmakers to enact a bill increasing the minimum age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has proposed a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has suggested a comparable move, alongside an overnight "internet blackout" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The government in the Netherlands has urged parents to restrict their children from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has adopted a non-binding resolution demanding a ban for under-16s without guardian approval is provided. While it warns of the "addictive" design of these platforms, the resolution does not establish enforceable legislation.

"An effective age barrier is a solid starting point," said one parliamentarian behind the resolution.

The United Kingdom: A Watchful Approach

For the United Kingdom, the administration has not ruled out a future ban, emphasizing that "no option is discarded" but maintaining any decision must be "based on conclusive data".

Earlier, support gathered behind a proposal to enact restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end watered down. Instead, the administration vowed to conduct more studies the topic.

Advocacy groups have expressed concerns. A prominent charity founded by the loved ones of a young person who died after viewing harmful online content contends that a strict age ban could fail to protect children and could result in a "dangerous transition" of risk when users reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the refusal of the tech sector to design products and services that are appropriate and age appropriate for children," commented a prominent online safety campaigner.

America: A Decentralized Approach

Stateside, regulation is mostly occurring at the state level due to country-wide gridlock.

• Utah requires guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and limits late-night use.
• Florida has passed a bill banning children under fourteen from accessing social media, though it faces legal challenges.
• The state of Virginia has enacted a law limiting minors to one hour of social media access per day, with any further access needing a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly enacted laws mandating adult authorization for teenagers to open social media profiles.

Despite bipartisan support and calls from certain politicians to mimic the Australian path, a federal ban is currently seen as improbable.

Global Perspectives

Apart from the West, other states are also considering moves.

• Malaysia aims to ban social media for under-16s effective next year.
• Brazil has lifted the required age for one major platform to 16.

But, global agencies adopt a more cautious position. A major UN agency has advised that age-based restrictions carry risks and "might prove counterproductive". The agency points out that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for marginalized children and that government action should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to invest in user protection.

As this international conversation continues, the steps of Australia and others indicate that policymakers globally are increasingly content to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.