🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial policy to restrict social platforms access for individuals under sixteen is creating waves around the globe. Officials, child protection groups, and families are observing closely to see if this tactic will become a template for countries abroad.

The European Trend

In Europe, a growing number of nations are exploring comparable measures.

• The Danish government plans a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM arguing that mobile devices and networks are "taking away our youngsters' youth". A law may be formalized next year.
• The Norwegian government is set to implement a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to protect the young from the "power of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is working on a digital ID system to confirm the identity and age of social media users. Authorities have indicated that an Australia-style ban is "one of the options under consideration".
• In Spain, the prime minister has called on the legislature to pass a law raising the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has endorsed a related move, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The administration in The Netherlands has advised parents to prevent their children from social media until 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has passed a symbolic motion demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 without a parent decides otherwise is given. Even though it warns of the "compulsive" nature of these platforms, the resolution does not enact mandatory rules.

"An effective age barrier is a useful first step," commented one European lawmaker supporting the measure.

The UK: A Watchful Eye

In the UK, the leadership has remained open to a possible ban, emphasizing that "no option is being dismissed" but maintaining any decision must be "grounded in conclusive data".

Previously, interest grew behind a proposal to impose controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end modified. Instead, the administration committed to investigate the topic.

Advocacy groups have voiced concerns. An organization set up by the family of a teenager who died after being exposed to harmful social media material argues that a simple age ban might not make platforms safer and could result in a "cliff edge" of harm when teens turn 16.

"This ban is a reaction to the inability of the tech sector to build products and services that are secure and suitable for children," stated a influential online safety campaigner.

America: A Fragmented Approach

Across America, legislation is mostly unfolding at the regional level due to national gridlock.

• Utah mandates guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and restricts nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has passed a measure barring under-14s from accessing social media, though it faces court battles.
• The state of Virginia has enacted a regulation restricting under-16s to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with any further time dependent on adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have also introduced laws mandating guardian approval for under-16s to open social media accounts.

Even with cross-party agreement and suggestions from certain politicians to follow Australia's lead, a US-wide ban is presently seen as unlikely.

Global Views

Outside of these regions, additional countries are similarly considering moves.

• Malaysia aims to restrict social media for under-16s beginning next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has raised the required age for Instagram to 16.

But, world bodies take a more measured tone. Unicef has warned that age-based restrictions have downsides and "could prove counterproductive". The body notes that online platforms can be a "critical link" for isolated young people and that government action should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to improve user protection.

While this international debate evolves, the policies of Australia and its followers show that policymakers internationally are less and less willing to delay for platforms to make changes on their own.