🔗 Share this article

Australia's decisive move to restrict social networking access for those under 16 is creating waves around the globe. Officials, campaigners, and families are watching intently to see if this strategy will become a template for countries abroad.

European Momentum

Across Europe, a rising chorus of countries are moving toward comparable measures.

• Denmark has announced a prohibition on social media for under-15s, with the leader arguing that smartphones and platforms are "taking away our children's childhood". A law is expected to be passed in the coming year.
• Norway is preparing to enforce a access barrier of 15, citing the need to shield the young from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• The Irish government is working on a digital wallet to confirm the user details of social media account holders. Officials have stated that an similar ban is "one of the measures in reserve".
• In Spain, the prime minister has called on lawmakers to enact a proposal increasing the legal age for joining 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 related action, potentially involving an overnight "internet blackout" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in the Netherlands has urged families to restrict their children from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has adopted a symbolic resolution supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 except if guardian approval is provided. While it warns of the "compulsive" nature of these apps, the step does not create mandatory rules.

"A clear age limit is a useful foundation," stated the parliamentarian driving the measure.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Eye

Across Britain, the administration has remained open to a possible ban, arguing that "no option is off the table" but insisting any decision must be "grounded in strong evidence".

Last year, interest grew behind a legislative effort to enact controls on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually modified. Nonetheless, the government pledged to investigate the matter.

Advocacy groups have expressed warnings. A prominent charity set up by the family of a teenager who was lost after encountering harmful social media material argues that a simple age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when young people become eligible.

"This ban is a reaction to the failure of the social media companies to design platforms and apps that are appropriate and fit for children," commented a prominent peer.

The United States: A State-by-State Landscape

Stateside, regulation is primarily unfolding at the regional government level amid federal stalemate.

• Utah requires adult approval for minors to use social media and restricts nighttime use.
• Florida has passed a bill barring children under fourteen from accessing social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has approved a rule restricting minors to a single hour of social media time per day, with any further access needing parental permission.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly enacted measures requiring adult authorization for minors to create social media presences.

Despite cross-party agreement and suggestions from some politicians to copy this example, a US-wide ban is currently seen as improbable.

Worldwide Views

Beyond these regions, further states are likewise exploring options.

• Malaysia intends to prohibit social media for those under sixteen beginning next year.
• Brazil has raised the access age for the platform Instagram to 16.

However, international agencies strike a more cautious position. The UN children's agency has warned that social media bans pose dangers and "might backfire". The organization highlights that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable youth and that bans should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to prioritize user protection.

While this worldwide conversation unfolds, the steps of Australia and its followers demonstrate that governments internationally are no longer willing to stand by for tech companies to make changes on their own.