🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold policy to ban social media access for those under 16 is sending ripples internationally. Politicians, campaigners, and parents are observing closely to see if this approach will inspire imitation for countries abroad.

European Momentum

In Europe, a rising group of countries are considering comparable bans.

• The Danish government plans a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister stating that phones and networks are "robbing our youngsters' innocence". The policy could be enacted in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is set to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, pointing to the need to shield young people from the "power of the algorithms".
• The Irish government is developing a digital wallet to verify the identity and age of social media users. Officials have indicated that an similar ban is "an tools in reserve".
• In Spain, the prime minister has urged parliament to pass a proposal increasing the access age for using social media to 16.
• In The French government, the president has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has recommended a comparable action, potentially involving an overnight "internet blackout" for older teenagers.
• The government in the Netherlands has advised families to prevent their kids from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has passed a non-binding resolution supporting a ban for minors except if parental consent is given. Although it warns of the "addictive" nature of these services, the move does not enact enforceable legislation.

"A strong age limit is a good foundation," stated a leading MEP driving the resolution.

Britain: A Cautious Stance

For the United Kingdom, the government has kept open a future ban, emphasizing that "no option is discarded" but stressing any action must be "supported by strong research".

Last year, momentum built behind a proposal to introduce controls on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately modified. However, the government vowed to investigate the topic.

Campaign organizations have voiced concerns. An organization set up by the relatives of a teenager who was lost after encountering harmful platform posts argues that a blanket age ban could fail to improve online safety and could create a "dangerous transition" of risk when teens become eligible.

"The Australian ban is a reaction to the inability of the social media companies to create tools that are secure and age appropriate for children," commented a influential child protection advocate.

The US: A State-by-State Landscape

Across America, legislation is mostly happening at the local level against a backdrop of national inaction.

• Utah mandates parental consent for minors to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• Florida has passed a law prohibiting those below 14 from creating accounts on social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• The state of Virginia has passed a regulation limiting teenagers to one hour of social media time per day, with any further use needing a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly enacted bills demanding parental consent for minors to open social media presences.

Even with cross-party agreement and proposals from certain figures to copy Australia's example, a federal ban is presently seen as improbable.

Worldwide Perspectives

Beyond the West, additional countries are similarly taking action.

• The Malaysian government intends to prohibit social media for under-16s beginning next year.
• Brazil has raised the required age for Instagram to 16.

However, international bodies strike a more measured tone. A major UN agency has warned that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "could have unintended consequences". The body notes that social networks can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable children and that government action should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to prioritize child safeguards.

While this worldwide discussion continues, the policies of the Australian government and several other countries indicate that states internationally are increasingly willing to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.