🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold move to restrict social networking access for young people below 16 is creating waves internationally. Lawmakers, campaigners, and families are monitoring closely to see if this approach will inspire imitation for other nations.

European Movement

Throughout Europe, a rising group of states are exploring comparable restrictions.

• Denmark plans a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister stating that smartphones and platforms are "stealing our youngsters' innocence". Legislation is expected to be passed soon.
• Norway is set to introduce a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to protect young people from the "manipulative force of the recommendation systems".
• The Irish government is developing a digital wallet to authenticate the age and identity of social media participants. The media minister have indicated that an Australian-model ban is "a potential measures on the table".
• In Spain, the prime minister has asked lawmakers to approve a proposal increasing the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has proposed a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a related move, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The administration in The Dutch government has advised families to restrict their youngsters from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has passed a advisory statement demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 without guardian approval is given. Even though it highlights of the "habit-forming" nature of these services, the move does not enact binding law.

"An effective age barrier is a useful starting point," commented one parliamentarian driving the initiative.

The United Kingdom: A Watchful Stance

In the UK, the government has remained open to a potential ban, stating that "no measure is discarded" but insisting any decision must be "grounded in robust evidence".

Last year, momentum gathered behind a proposal to enact limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately modified. Instead, the administration committed to conduct more studies the topic.

Campaign organizations have expressed apprehensions. An organization founded by the loved ones of a young person who died after viewing dangerous online content contends that a simple age ban might not improve online safety and could result in a "sudden drop-off" of risk when teens turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a answer to the inability of the Silicon Valley to build tools that are safe and age appropriate for minors," stated a prominent online safety campaigner.

The US: A Fragmented Approach

Across America, legislation is largely occurring at the regional level due to national inaction.

• Utah mandates guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has enacted a bill banning children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it is entangled in court battles.
• Virginia has passed a law capping teenagers to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with extra use requiring parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise introduced laws demanding adult authorization for minors to set up social media profiles.

Despite cross-party agreement and proposals from various figures to copy this example, a US-wide ban is right now seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Outlook

Outside of the West, other states are also taking action.

• The Malaysian government aims to restrict social media for under-16s effective next year.
• Brazil has increased the minimum age for one major platform to 16.

However, world agencies take a more nuanced position. A major UN agency has cautioned that age-based restrictions pose dangers and "could backfire". The body points out that social networks can be a "vital connection" for isolated young people and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to improve user protection.

As this worldwide discussion evolves, the actions of Australia and others indicate that states around the world are less and less prepared to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.