🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold move to ban social media access for individuals under sixteen is creating waves around the globe. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and guardians are observing with great interest to see if this strategy will set a precedent for countries abroad.

Across Europe Momentum

In Europe, a growing chorus of countries are moving toward comparable bans.

• The Danish government has announced a prohibition on social media for youth below 15, with the PM stating that smartphones and platforms are "taking away our kids' youth". The policy is expected to be enacted next year.
• Norway is planning to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to safeguard young people from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is introducing a digital ID system to verify the age and identity of social media account holders. The media minister have suggested that an similar ban is "an options under consideration".
• In Spain, the leader has asked lawmakers to enact a law increasing the minimum age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a similar action, alongside an overnight "internet blackout" for adolescents.
• The government in the Netherlands has recommended guardians to prevent their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has adopted a non-binding resolution supporting a ban for minors unless guardian approval is granted. Although it highlights of the "habit-forming" quality of these services, the move does not establish binding law.

"An effective age limit is a solid starting point," stated the European lawmaker driving the measure.

The UK: A Watchful Stance

For the United Kingdom, the government has kept open a potential ban, stating that "nothing is discarded" but maintaining any decision must be "supported by robust data".

Last year, support built behind a proposal to enact controls on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately modified. Instead, the government committed to further research the matter.

Campaign organizations have voiced warnings. An organization established by the family of a young person who was lost after being exposed to harmful platform posts suggests that a blanket age ban may not improve online safety and could create a "cliff edge" of exposure when teens become eligible.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the failure of the tech sector to design products and services that are secure and age appropriate for children," stated a influential child protection advocate.

The US: A State-by-State Picture

Stateside, legislation is mostly unfolding at the local level due to country-wide inaction.

• Utah mandates parental consent for under-18s to use social media and controls overnight use.
• Florida has enacted a law prohibiting those below 14 from accessing social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has approved a rule restricting minors to 60 minutes of social media time per day, with additional access requiring a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise enacted laws demanding parental consent for teenagers to open social media accounts.

Even with bipartisan support and calls from certain politicians to follow the Australian lead, a US-wide ban is currently seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Views

Outside of Europe and the US, other countries are similarly taking action.

• Malaysia plans to ban social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the access age for one major platform to 16.

However, global organizations adopt a more cautious stance. The UN children's agency has cautioned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "may even have unintended consequences". The agency highlights that the internet can be a "lifeline" for isolated youth and that bans should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to improve child safeguards.

Even as this worldwide conversation continues, the actions of the Australian government and others indicate that states internationally are less and less willing to wait for platforms to act voluntarily.