🔗 Share this article

Australia's bold action to restrict social networking access for young people below 16 is sending ripples worldwide. Lawmakers, campaigners, and families are monitoring intently to see if this approach will become a template for other nations.

Across Europe Momentum

Throughout Europe, a rising number of nations are exploring similar measures.

• Denmark plans a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the leader stating that smartphones and networks are "taking away our kids' childhood". Legislation is expected to be enacted in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is planning to enforce a age restriction of 15, citing the need to shield the young from the "power of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is working on a digital ID system to verify the identity and age of social media account holders. The media minister have indicated that an similar ban could be "one of the options in reserve".
• In Spain, the president has asked lawmakers to pass a bill raising the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the president has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has endorsed a comparable move, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in The Dutch government has recommended guardians to block their children from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the European parliament has approved a non-binding motion supporting a ban for minors without guardian approval is given. Even though it highlights of the "compulsive" nature of these services, the move does not establish mandatory rules.

"A strong age barrier is a solid first step," said a leading European lawmaker supporting the resolution.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Approach

In the UK, the administration has kept open a future ban, arguing that "nothing is being dismissed" but maintaining any action must be "supported by strong evidence".

Earlier, support built behind a proposal to impose restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately watered down. Nonetheless, the administration pledged to further research the matter.

Campaign organizations have expressed concerns. A prominent charity founded by the family of a teenager who died after being exposed to dangerous online content contends that a strict age ban could fail to improve online safety and could result in a "dangerous transition" of exposure when young people reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the refusal of the tech sector to build products and services that are appropriate and fit for minors," commented a prominent peer.

The US: A State-by-State Approach

Stateside, legislation is largely unfolding at the local government level amid federal gridlock.

• Utah demands adult approval for those under 18 to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has enacted a measure banning under-14s from accessing social media, though it is subject to court battles.
• The state of Virginia has approved a rule capping minors to one hour of social media access per day, with any further time needing adult consent.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have similarly passed laws mandating parental consent for teenagers to open social media accounts.

Even with bipartisan support and suggestions from some politicians to follow this lead, a federal ban is presently seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Perspectives

Beyond the West, additional countries are also considering moves.

• Malaysia intends to restrict social media for under-16s effective next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the required age for one major platform to 16.

However, world bodies strike a more nuanced tone. Unicef has advised that age-based restrictions carry risks and "may even have unintended consequences". The organization notes that social networks can be a "lifeline" for marginalized young people and that bans should not be a "excuse" for platform operators to improve safety.

Even as this worldwide debate continues, the actions of the Australian government and others demonstrate that states around the world are less and less prepared to wait for tech companies to act voluntarily.