🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive move to prohibit social platforms access for those under 16 is creating waves worldwide. Politicians, safety advocates, and families are monitoring closely to see if this strategy will inspire imitation for the rest of the world.

European Momentum

In Europe, a rising number of states are considering parallel bans.

• Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the leader declaring that smartphones and platforms are "robbing our youngsters' youth". The policy is expected to be enacted next year.
• Norway is set to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, pointing to the need to protect the young from the "influence of the AI".
• The Irish government is developing a online verification tool to authenticate the user details of social media users. The media minister have indicated that an Australian-model ban could be "a potential tools under consideration".
• In Spain, the leader has called on lawmakers to pass a proposal raising the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a similar move, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has advised parents to prevent their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

Across the European Union, the EU parliament has adopted a advisory resolution demanding a ban for under-16s without a parent decides otherwise is given. While it highlights of the "compulsive" design of these platforms, the resolution does not enact mandatory rules.

"An effective age barrier is a good starting point," commented the European lawmaker behind the initiative.

The UK: A Watchful Eye

Across Britain, the administration has kept open a future ban, stating that "nothing is discarded" but stressing any action must be "grounded in strong evidence".

Previously, support built behind a bill to enact controls on social media use by under-16s, but it was ultimately weakened. Instead, the administration vowed to investigate the issue.

Advocacy groups have voiced concerns. One foundation founded by the family of a teenager who was lost after encountering harmful online content contends that a simple age ban might not protect children and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of risk when teens turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the failure of the tech sector to create products and services that are safe and suitable for young users," commented a prominent child protection advocate.

The US: A State-by-State Landscape

Stateside, regulation is largely occurring at the local level amid national gridlock.

• The state of Utah demands guardian permission for minors to use social media and restricts nighttime use.
• Florida has signed a bill barring children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it faces court battles.
• Virginia has passed a rule limiting under-16s to 60 minutes of social media time per day, with additional use needing adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise introduced laws mandating guardian approval for under-16s to create social media profiles.

Despite widespread concern and suggestions from certain figures to follow the Australian lead, a federal ban is right now seen as improbable.

Global Views

Beyond the West, other nations are likewise taking action.

• The Malaysian government aims to prohibit social media for teenagers starting from next year.
• Brazil has increased the minimum age for the platform Instagram to 16.

However, global organizations adopt a more measured position. Unicef has advised that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "may even have unintended consequences". The body points out that social networks can be a "vital connection" for marginalized children and that government action should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to prioritize safety.

As this worldwide conversation unfolds, the steps of Australia and its followers show that governments internationally are increasingly content to wait for the industry to act voluntarily.