🔗 Share this article

The Australian controversial move to ban social platforms access for young people below 16 is sending ripples around the globe. Officials, child protection groups, and families are observing closely to see if this approach will become a template for other nations.

The European Momentum

Throughout Europe, a rising number of nations are exploring similar measures.

• Denmark has stated a ban on social media for under-15s, with the PM arguing that phones and networks are "stealing our youngsters' youth". The policy could be passed next year.
• Norway is set to implement a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard the young from the "power of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is introducing a digital ID system to confirm the identity and age of social media participants. Authorities have suggested that an Australia-style ban could be "one of the measures under consideration".
• In Spain, the prime minister has asked the legislature to enact a law increasing the minimum age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has recommended a related move, alongside an overnight "internet blackout" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in the Netherlands has recommended families to block their youngsters from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the EU parliament has adopted a symbolic statement demanding a ban for minors unless guardian approval is granted. Even though it warns of the "addictive" quality of these services, the step does not create mandatory rules.

"A clear age limit is a useful foundation," said a leading MEP driving the resolution.

The UK: A Cautious Eye

For the United Kingdom, the leadership has not ruled out a possible ban, emphasizing that "no option is being dismissed" but stressing any decision must be "grounded in strong data".

Previously, interest gathered behind a proposal to impose controls on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end weakened. Instead, the administration vowed to investigate the matter.

Campaign organizations have raised apprehensions. A prominent charity established by the loved ones of a young person who was lost after encountering harmful online content suggests that a simple age ban could fail to improve online safety and could create a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when users reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a response to the refusal of the social media companies to create tools that are appropriate and fit for minors," said a prominent online safety campaigner.

The United States: A State-by-State Approach

Across America, action is largely unfolding at the local level against a backdrop of federal stalemate.

• The state of Utah requires guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and restricts overnight use.
• The state of Florida has passed a bill barring children under fourteen from accessing social media, though it faces legal challenges.
• Virginia has passed a law limiting teenagers to one hour of social media use per day, with any further access dependent on parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly introduced bills requiring adult authorization for teenagers to open social media presences.

Even with cross-party agreement and proposals from various individuals to mimic Australia's lead, a US-wide ban is right now seen as a distant prospect.

Global Outlook

Beyond these regions, other nations are also exploring options.

• Malaysia plans to restrict social media for under-16s effective next year.
• Brazil has raised the minimum age for Instagram to 16.

But, world agencies adopt a more measured position. Unicef has cautioned that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "might prove counterproductive". The agency notes that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for isolated children and that government action should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to improve safety.

Even as this global debate continues, the policies of Australia and others demonstrate that states globally are less and less willing to wait for the industry to act voluntarily.