🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold policy to ban social media access for young people below 16 is creating waves internationally. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and parents are watching intently to see if this approach will set a precedent for countries abroad.

The European Momentum

In Europe, a increasing group of nations are considering parallel measures.

• Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the leader stating that smartphones and platforms are "stealing our youngsters' childhood". The policy is expected to be passed next year.
• Norway is preparing to enforce a access barrier of 15, citing the need to safeguard children from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• The Irish government is working on a online verification tool to verify the age and identity of social media account holders. Authorities have indicated that an Australia-style ban is "a potential options in reserve".
• In Spain, the prime minister has asked parliament to enact a bill raising the legal age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has recommended a related step, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
• The administration in The Netherlands has urged guardians to block their kids from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the bloc's legislature has passed a advisory statement demanding a ban for under-16s except if a parent decides otherwise is given. Although it warns of the "compulsive" nature of these platforms, the move does not enact binding law.

"An effective age barrier is a useful starting point," stated one European lawmaker driving the initiative.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Approach

In the UK, the government has remained open to a future ban, emphasizing that "no measure is off the table" but maintaining any action must be "based on conclusive evidence".

Last year, momentum built behind a legislative effort to introduce limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end watered down. Instead, the government pledged to investigate the topic.

Advocacy groups have expressed apprehensions. An organization established by the relatives of a teenager who died after being exposed to harmful social media material contends that a simple age ban might not make platforms safer and could result in a "dangerous transition" of risk when users turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the refusal of the Silicon Valley to create products and services that are secure and suitable for children," commented a leading online safety campaigner.

The US: A Fragmented Approach

Across America, action is largely occurring at the local government level amid federal stalemate.

• Utah mandates parental consent for under-18s to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has signed a measure banning under-14s from joining social media, though it faces legal challenges.
• Virginia has approved a rule capping teenagers to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with additional time dependent on a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly enacted laws demanding guardian approval for minors to create social media accounts.

Even with cross-party agreement and proposals from various politicians to mimic Australia's path, a nationwide ban is right now seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Perspectives

Outside of the West, other nations are also exploring options.

• Malaysia aims to ban social media for under-16s effective next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the required age for Instagram to 16.

But, international bodies adopt a more nuanced stance. The UN children's agency has warned that age-based restrictions pose dangers and "may even prove counterproductive". The organization notes that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for marginalized children and that government action should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to invest in child safeguards.

As this global debate evolves, the actions of this nation and several other countries indicate that policymakers internationally are no longer content to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.