🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive action to restrict social platforms access for young people below 16 is sparking debate internationally. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and guardians are observing intently to see if this approach will inspire imitation for other nations.

Across Europe Trend

In Europe, a increasing number of countries are moving toward parallel restrictions.

• The Danish government plans a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader stating that phones and apps are "stealing our children's childhood". Legislation could be formalized soon.
• The Norwegian government is set to introduce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to safeguard children from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is developing a online verification tool to authenticate the identity and age of social media account holders. The media minister have indicated that an similar ban remains "a potential options under consideration".
• In Spain, the prime minister has urged lawmakers to approve a law raising the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In The French government, the president has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a legislative committee has endorsed a similar move, including an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has advised families to prevent their youngsters from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the bloc's legislature has approved a non-binding resolution calling for a ban for minors without a parent decides otherwise is granted. While it warns of the "compulsive" quality of these apps, the step does not establish binding law.

"A clear age limit is a useful foundation," said one MEP driving the measure.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Eye

In the UK, the administration has kept open a future ban, arguing that "no option is off the table" but insisting any decision must be "based on conclusive research".

Earlier, momentum built behind a bill to introduce limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end weakened. Nonetheless, the administration pledged to conduct more studies the topic.

Charities have voiced warnings. One foundation established by the loved ones of a girl who was lost after being exposed to dangerous platform posts argues that a strict age ban may not make platforms safer and could lead to a "dangerous transition" of risk when users turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a reaction to the failure of the social media companies to create products and services that are appropriate and fit for children," commented a leading peer.

America: A Decentralized Landscape

Across America, action is largely unfolding at the state level amid national gridlock.

• The state of Utah mandates parental consent for under-18s to use social media and restricts nighttime use.
• Florida has signed a law banning under-14s from joining social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has approved a regulation limiting teenagers to a single hour of social media use per day, with extra use needing adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise introduced laws requiring parental consent for under-16s to create social media presences.

Despite widespread concern and calls from various politicians to copy the Australian example, a nationwide ban is right now seen as improbable.

Global Views

Beyond the West, other countries are similarly exploring options.

• The Malaysian government plans to prohibit social media for those under sixteen starting from next year.
• Brazil has raised the minimum age for the platform Instagram to 16.

Yet, world agencies take a more nuanced tone. The UN children's agency has advised that age-based restrictions pose dangers and "could prove counterproductive". The organization points out that social networks can be a "vital connection" for isolated youth and that government action should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to prioritize child safeguards.

Even as this worldwide debate evolves, the actions of Australia and others indicate that policymakers internationally are increasingly willing to delay for platforms to act voluntarily.