🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive policy to restrict social platforms access for individuals under sixteen is creating waves internationally. Politicians, child protection groups, and parents are observing with great interest to see if this strategy will become a template for other nations.

Across Europe Movement

Throughout Europe, a growing number of nations are considering similar bans.

• Denmark has stated a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM stating that smartphones and networks are "robbing our children's innocence". A law could be enacted in the coming year.
• Norway is planning to implement a age restriction of 15, citing the need to protect young people from the "influence of the AI".
• The Irish government is working on a digital wallet to authenticate the age and identity of social media participants. The media minister have stated that an Australia-style ban could be "one of the options under consideration".
• In Spain, the leader has asked parliament to pass a bill increasing the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a related action, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The authorities in The Dutch government has advised families to restrict their kids from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the European parliament has adopted a symbolic statement demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 unless a parent decides otherwise is granted. Although it cautions of the "addictive" quality of these platforms, the resolution does not create binding law.

"A clear age limit is a solid first step," commented one parliamentarian driving the resolution.

The UK: A Watchful Eye

In the UK, the leadership has remained open to a future ban, arguing that "nothing is off the table" but maintaining any action must be "based on strong evidence".

Previously, interest gathered behind a bill to impose restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually modified. Nonetheless, the government pledged to further research the topic.

Charities have expressed apprehensions. One foundation set up by the relatives of a teenager who was lost after being exposed to harmful social media material contends that a blanket age ban might not make platforms safer and could create a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when users become eligible.

"Australia's ban is a response to the inability of the tech sector to create products and services that are secure and fit for children," said a influential peer.

The US: A Fragmented Approach

Across America, regulation is mostly unfolding at the state level against a backdrop of federal inaction.

• Utah requires guardian permission for minors to use social media and restricts nighttime use.
• Florida has enacted a bill prohibiting under-14s from accessing social media, though it is subject to court battles.
• Virginia has enacted a rule restricting minors to a single hour of social media use per day, with additional use requiring adult consent.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also enacted measures requiring parental consent for teenagers to open social media accounts.

Despite cross-party agreement and proposals from some figures to follow the Australian example, a US-wide ban is right now seen as unlikely.

Global Views

Apart from Europe and the US, other nations are similarly considering moves.

• The Malaysian government intends to prohibit social media for under-16s starting from next year.
• Brazil has raised the required age for one major platform to 16.

Yet, international bodies strike a more nuanced stance. The UN children's agency has warned that age-based restrictions carry risks and "may even backfire". The organization highlights that the internet can be a "critical link" for vulnerable young people and that bans should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to invest in safety.

Even as this global discussion continues, the actions of the Australian government and its followers indicate that states internationally are no longer content to wait for tech companies to make changes on their own.