🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive policy to ban social media access for young people below 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Politicians, campaigners, and families are monitoring with great interest to see if this tactic will become a template for countries abroad.

The European Momentum

In Europe, a rising chorus of nations are exploring similar measures.

• The Danish government has stated a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the prime minister stating that smartphones and platforms are "robbing our children's youth". The policy could be passed next year.
• Norway is preparing to introduce a access barrier of 15, citing the need to shield children from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• Ireland is introducing a digital ID system to confirm the user details of social media users. Authorities have indicated that an Australian-model ban remains "a potential options on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the prime minister has called on parliament to enact a bill raising the minimum age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a comparable action, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The government in The Netherlands has recommended guardians to block their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has adopted a non-binding resolution supporting a ban for under-16s unless a parent decides otherwise is given. Even though it warns of the "addictive" quality of these services, the move does not create mandatory rules.

"A clear age barrier is a solid foundation," commented a leading parliamentarian behind the initiative.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Approach

Across Britain, the leadership has kept open a potential ban, stating that "no option is off the table" but maintaining any policy must be "supported by conclusive research".

Last year, support grew behind a legislative effort to enact controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end weakened. Instead, the government pledged to further research the issue.

Advocacy groups have raised apprehensions. One foundation founded by the relatives of a teenager who died after being exposed to dangerous social media material contends that a blanket age ban might not make platforms safer and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when users become eligible.

"The Australian ban is a answer to the refusal of the social media companies to build products and services that are secure and fit for minors," commented a influential online safety campaigner.

The United States: A Fragmented Approach

Stateside, action is mostly unfolding at the state level amid country-wide stalemate.

• Utah demands parental consent for under-18s to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has signed a measure barring children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has approved a rule capping minors to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with extra use requiring parental permission.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have similarly passed laws mandating adult authorization for teenagers to set up social media accounts.

Despite bipartisan support and suggestions from some figures to mimic the Australian path, a nationwide ban is right now seen as unlikely.

International Outlook

Outside of Europe and the US, other states are likewise taking action.

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

However, international organizations take a more nuanced tone. A major UN agency has warned that social media bans have downsides and "might backfire". The organization notes that the internet can be a "critical link" for isolated young people and that government action should not be a "substitute" for social media firms to prioritize user protection.

Even as this worldwide debate unfolds, the actions of Australia and its followers indicate that policymakers internationally are less and less willing to delay for the industry to act voluntarily.