🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold policy to ban social networking access for young people below 16 is sending ripples around the globe. Officials, child protection groups, and families are observing intently to see if this tactic will set a precedent for countries abroad.

European Momentum

Throughout Europe, a increasing chorus of states are moving toward similar bans.

• Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the leader declaring that mobile devices and platforms are "robbing our youngsters' innocence". The policy is expected to be enacted soon.
• Norway is planning to introduce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to protect children from the "influence of the AI".
• The Irish government is developing a online verification tool to verify the identity and age of social media participants. Authorities have stated that an Australia-style ban could be "a potential options in reserve".
• In Spain, the leader has called on parliament to enact a proposal raising the minimum age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has proposed a ban for under-15s, and a legislative committee has recommended a related move, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The administration in The Dutch government has advised guardians to block their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

Across the European Union, the bloc's legislature has approved a advisory resolution calling for a ban for minors except if parental consent is granted. Even though it highlights of the "addictive" quality of these apps, the step does not establish binding law.

"A strong age limit is a solid starting point," commented a leading European lawmaker supporting the resolution.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Stance

In the UK, the administration has kept open a possible ban, emphasizing that "nothing is being dismissed" but insisting any decision must be "supported by conclusive evidence".

Earlier, interest grew behind a proposal to impose restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end watered down. However, the government vowed to further research the matter.

Charities have raised concerns. An organization set up by the relatives of a girl who was lost after viewing disturbing platform posts suggests that a simple age ban could fail to improve online safety and could lead to a "dangerous transition" of exposure when users reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the inability of the tech sector to create tools that are safe and age appropriate for young users," said a leading peer.

The United States: A Decentralized Landscape

Stateside, legislation is mostly unfolding at the state government level due to country-wide stalemate.

• The state of Utah requires parental consent for under-18s to use social media and limits late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a bill barring those below 14 from accessing social media, though it faces court battles.
• Virginia has passed a regulation restricting under-16s to one hour of social media use per day, with extra access needing parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise enacted measures mandating adult authorization for under-16s to open social media accounts.

Even with widespread concern and proposals from some politicians to follow Australia's path, a US-wide ban is currently seen as improbable.

International Perspectives

Beyond Europe and the US, additional nations are also taking action.

• The Malaysian government intends to restrict social media for teenagers effective next year.
• Brazil has lifted the access age for the platform Instagram to 16.

However, global organizations adopt a more nuanced stance. Unicef has cautioned that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "may even have unintended consequences". The organization notes that social networks can be a "critical link" for isolated youth and that government action should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to improve safety.

Even as this global discussion evolves, the policies of Australia and its followers demonstrate that governments internationally are less and less prepared to stand by for platforms to make changes on their own.