🔗 Share this article

Australia's controversial action to ban social media access for those under 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Politicians, campaigners, and guardians are monitoring with great interest to see if this tactic will set a precedent for countries abroad.

The European Movement

Throughout Europe, a growing chorus of countries are moving toward similar bans.

• Denmark has announced a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM declaring that phones and platforms are "taking away our children's youth". A law could be enacted next year.
• Norway is preparing to introduce a access barrier of 15, citing the need to protect children from the "influence of the algorithms".
• The Irish government is working on a digital wallet to authenticate the user details of social media participants. Officials have suggested that an Australia-style ban could be "one of the measures under consideration".
• In The Spanish government, the prime minister has urged parliament to approve a bill raising the legal age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has recommended a similar move, potentially involving an overnight "internet blackout" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The authorities in the Netherlands has recommended guardians to prevent their kids from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has adopted a symbolic motion calling for a ban for minors unless parental consent is granted. While it warns of the "compulsive" nature of these platforms, the step does not enact mandatory rules.

"A strong age restriction is a useful foundation," commented the parliamentarian supporting the resolution.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Stance

Across Britain, the leadership has remained open to a potential ban, emphasizing that "no measure is being dismissed" but maintaining any policy must be "supported by conclusive data".

Earlier, momentum built behind a legislative effort to impose controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately modified. Instead, the administration vowed to conduct more studies the topic.

Campaign organizations have raised warnings. An organization set up by the loved ones of a girl who died after viewing disturbing online content argues that a blanket age ban may not protect children and could create a "dangerous transition" of harm when users turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the inability of the tech sector to design products and services that are secure and fit for children," said a leading child protection advocate.

America: A Fragmented Approach

Across America, regulation is mostly happening at the regional government level against a backdrop of country-wide gridlock.

• The state of Utah requires parental consent for minors to use social media and controls late-night use.
• Florida has signed a bill banning under-14s from joining social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has passed a rule limiting teenagers to a single hour of social media access per day, with extra access dependent on a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have also passed bills demanding parental consent for minors to create social media profiles.

Despite bipartisan support and suggestions from some individuals to mimic Australia's example, a federal ban is currently seen as unlikely.

Global Outlook

Outside of the West, other countries are similarly considering moves.

• Malaysia plans to ban social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• Brazil has increased the minimum age for Instagram to 16.

But, world agencies strike a more measured position. Unicef has advised that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "could backfire". The agency notes that social networks can be a "critical link" for marginalized youth and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to invest in user protection.

As this international debate unfolds, the policies of the Australian government and its followers indicate that policymakers internationally are less and less willing to delay for platforms to make changes on their own.