The Australian controversial policy to ban social platforms access for those under 16 is sending ripples worldwide. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and families are monitoring closely to see if this approach will inspire imitation for other nations.
European Momentum
Throughout Europe, a increasing number of states are considering parallel measures.
- Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for youth below 15, with the leader arguing that smartphones and platforms are "taking away our youngsters' innocence". The policy is expected to be formalized in the coming year.
- The Norwegian government is planning to enforce a age restriction of 15, pointing to the need to protect the young from the "power of the recommendation systems".
- Ireland is working on a digital ID system to verify the identity and age of social media participants. The media minister have stated that an Australian-model ban is "an measures under consideration".
- In Spain, the leader has called on lawmakers to approve a law raising the access age for accessing social media to 16.
- In France, the president has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a legislative committee has recommended a similar step, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
- The administration in The Netherlands has advised parents to restrict their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.
For the broader EU, the European parliament has approved a non-binding resolution supporting a ban for under-16s except if parental consent is given. Although it highlights of the "compulsive" design of these services, the move does not create enforceable legislation.
"A strong age limit is a good first step," commented one MEP driving the measure.
The UK: An Evidence-Based Stance
For the United Kingdom, the leadership has not ruled out a future ban, emphasizing that "nothing is off the table" but insisting any decision must be "based on strong research".
Previously, support gathered behind a proposal to impose restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was eventually modified. Nonetheless, the government committed to investigate the issue.
Charities have voiced concerns. A prominent charity set up by the loved ones of a young person who was lost after viewing dangerous social media material contends that a simple age ban might not improve online safety and could lead to a "cliff edge" of exposure when users reach the legal age.
"This ban is a response to the inability of the tech sector to build tools that are appropriate and fit for young users," commented a leading child protection advocate.
The United States: A State-by-State Picture
In the United States, action is largely unfolding at the local level amid federal stalemate.
- The state of Utah demands guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and controls nighttime use.
- Florida has enacted a bill barring those below 14 from accessing social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
- The state of Virginia has enacted a rule capping teenagers to 60 minutes of social media access per day, with additional access needing parental permission.
- Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have also passed laws requiring guardian approval for minors to create social media profiles.
Despite widespread concern and proposals from some figures to follow Australia's lead, a federal ban is right now seen as unlikely.
Worldwide Perspectives
Outside of Europe and the US, further countries are likewise considering moves.
- Malaysia intends to restrict social media for teenagers effective next year.
- The Brazilian authorities has increased the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.
But, international organizations strike a more measured stance. Unicef has warned that social media bans pose dangers and "may even prove counterproductive". The body highlights that the internet can be a "lifeline" for vulnerable youth and that government action should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to invest in child safeguards.
Even as this international discussion unfolds, the actions of the Australian government and its followers demonstrate that governments internationally are less and less content to delay for platforms to make changes on their own.
