🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial policy to ban social networking access for individuals under sixteen is sending ripples around the globe. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and parents are observing intently to see if this strategy will set a precedent for countries abroad.

Across Europe Trend

Across Europe, a growing group of nations are considering parallel bans.

• Denmark plans a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister arguing that mobile devices and networks are "stealing our youngsters' childhood". Legislation is expected to be formalized soon.
• Norway is set to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, pointing to the need to protect the young from the "power of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is working on a online verification tool to verify the user details of social media account holders. Authorities have stated that an Australia-style ban is "an measures in reserve".
• In Spain, the prime minister has called on parliament to pass a law increasing the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has suggested a similar action, including an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in The Netherlands has advised parents to block their kids from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the EU parliament has approved a non-binding resolution demanding a ban for under-16s unless a parent decides otherwise is given. Although it warns of the "habit-forming" design of these platforms, the resolution does not enact mandatory rules.

"A clear age restriction is a useful starting point," commented a leading MEP behind the initiative.

The UK: A Watchful Approach

Across Britain, the administration has remained open to a potential ban, stating that "nothing is discarded" but stressing any decision must be "based on conclusive research".

Earlier, interest gathered behind a bill to enact restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end modified. Nonetheless, the government vowed to investigate the issue.

Charities have raised warnings. An organization established by the loved ones of a young person who took her own life after viewing harmful social media material contends that a blanket age ban may not protect children and could result in a "sudden drop-off" of risk when users become eligible.

"The Australian ban is a reaction to the refusal of the Silicon Valley to design platforms and apps that are safe and fit for minors," commented a prominent online safety campaigner.

The US: A Decentralized Picture

Stateside, regulation is largely occurring at the local level against a backdrop of national inaction.

• Utah demands adult approval for minors to use social media and limits late-night use.
• The state of Florida has passed a measure banning those below 14 from joining social media, though it faces legal challenges.
• Virginia has passed a rule restricting teenagers to 60 minutes of social media access per day, with extra use requiring a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have similarly introduced laws requiring parental consent for under-16s to set up social media profiles.

Despite widespread concern and proposals from various figures to follow the Australian example, a US-wide ban is right now seen as improbable.

International Outlook

Beyond these regions, further nations are also exploring options.

• Malaysia aims to restrict social media for those under sixteen effective next year.
• Brazil has raised the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

But, world agencies strike a more measured position. Unicef has warned that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "could backfire". The agency notes that the internet can be a "lifeline" for vulnerable young people and that bans should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to invest in child safeguards.

As this worldwide debate evolves, the steps of the Australian government and its followers indicate that policymakers internationally are no longer willing to stand by for the industry to self-regulate.