🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive action to ban social platforms access for young people below 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Officials, campaigners, and parents are watching with great interest to see if this tactic will become a template for the rest of the world.

The European Movement

Across Europe, a increasing group of states are considering comparable bans.

• Denmark plans a ban on social media for under-15s, with the leader stating that phones and platforms are "stealing our youngsters' youth". Legislation could be formalized in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is preparing to introduce a access barrier of 15, citing the need to shield the young from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• The Irish government is working on a online verification tool to verify the identity and age of social media users. Authorities have stated that an similar ban is "one of the tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the leader has called on the legislature to enact a bill raising the minimum age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a legislative committee has suggested a related step, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in The Netherlands has recommended families to block their kids from social media up to the age of 15.

Across the European Union, the EU parliament has adopted a advisory motion demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 except if a parent decides otherwise is given. While it highlights of the "habit-forming" quality of these services, the step does not create enforceable legislation.

"A clear age barrier is a good first step," commented a leading European lawmaker behind the resolution.

The UK: A Cautious Eye

Across Britain, the leadership has remained open to a possible ban, stating that "no option is discarded" but maintaining any policy must be "supported by strong evidence".

Last year, support grew behind a legislative effort to impose limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually modified. Instead, the administration committed to further research the matter.

Advocacy groups have expressed apprehensions. One foundation set up by the relatives of a girl who died after being exposed to disturbing social media material argues that a strict age ban might not protect children and could create a "sudden drop-off" of risk when teens turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a answer to the inability of the tech sector to create tools that are secure and suitable for children," said a prominent peer.

America: A State-by-State Approach

Stateside, legislation is primarily occurring at the regional government level amid federal inaction.

• Utah demands parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• The state of Florida has enacted a measure barring under-14s from accessing social media, though it is entangled in legal challenges.
• Virginia has passed a law limiting under-16s to 60 minutes of social media time per day, with additional time needing a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also passed bills demanding parental consent for under-16s to open social media accounts.

Despite bipartisan support and suggestions from various politicians to follow the Australian path, a federal ban is presently seen as improbable.

International Perspectives

Beyond these regions, further nations are similarly exploring options.

• Malaysia aims to prohibit social media for those under sixteen starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the access age for Instagram to 16.

However, international bodies adopt a more cautious stance. A major UN agency has cautioned that social media bans carry risks and "could backfire". The agency notes that social networks can be a "lifeline" for vulnerable young people and that government action should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to prioritize child safeguards.

Even as this global conversation unfolds, the steps of this nation and several other countries indicate that governments internationally are no longer willing to delay for the industry to make changes on their own.