Australia's controversial action to ban social media access for those under 16 is sending ripples internationally. Officials, safety advocates, and families are observing closely to see if this tactic will become a template for other nations.
Across Europe Movement
Across Europe, a increasing number of nations are exploring similar restrictions.
- Denmark plans a restriction on social media for youth below 15, with the leader stating that mobile devices and apps are "robbing our kids' innocence". A law may be passed soon.
- Norway is preparing to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, pointing to the need to protect children from the "power of the algorithms".
- Ireland is developing a digital wallet to verify the user details of social media account holders. Officials have suggested that an Australia-style ban remains "a potential tools under consideration".
- In Spain, the president has asked parliament to enact a proposal lifting the access age for using social media to 16.
- In The French government, the president has proposed a ban for those under fifteen, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a similar move, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers.
- The authorities in the Netherlands has advised families to prevent their youngsters from social media before 15.
For the broader EU, the EU parliament has approved a advisory motion calling for a ban for teenagers under 16 unless guardian approval is granted. Although it cautions of the "habit-forming" design of these services, the resolution does not enact binding law.
"A clear age barrier is a useful first step," stated a leading MEP behind the initiative.
The United Kingdom: A Watchful Stance
For the United Kingdom, the leadership has remained open to a potential ban, emphasizing that "no option is off the table" but insisting any action must be "grounded in conclusive data".
Last year, momentum grew behind a legislative effort to impose restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was eventually modified. Instead, the government vowed to conduct more studies the matter.
Campaign organizations have raised apprehensions. One foundation set up by the relatives of a teenager who was lost after viewing dangerous social media material suggests that a strict age ban may not protect children and could result in a "cliff edge" of exposure when users reach the legal age.
"The Australian ban is a answer to the failure of the Silicon Valley to build products and services that are safe and age appropriate for young users," stated a prominent child protection advocate.
The US: A Fragmented Picture
In the United States, legislation is primarily occurring at the state level against a backdrop of federal inaction.
- The state of Utah demands parental consent for minors to use social media and controls nighttime use.
- Florida has passed a law prohibiting children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it is subject to constitutional disputes.
- The state of Virginia has enacted a law capping minors to a single hour of social media time per day, with extra access requiring parental permission.
- Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also passed laws demanding parental consent for minors to set up social media accounts.
Even with bipartisan support and calls from various figures to follow the Australian path, a federal ban is currently seen as a distant prospect.
International Perspectives
Outside of these regions, further countries are also exploring options.
- Malaysia plans to ban social media for those under sixteen beginning next year.
- Brazil has lifted the minimum age for one major platform to 16.
But, international agencies adopt a more cautious stance. Unicef has warned that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "may even have unintended consequences". The agency notes that the internet can be a "critical link" for marginalized youth and that bans should not be a "excuse" for platform operators to prioritize child safeguards.
While this worldwide debate unfolds, the steps of Australia and its followers demonstrate that governments internationally are less and less prepared to wait for platforms to act voluntarily.
