🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold move to restrict social media access for those under 16 is sparking debate internationally. Officials, campaigners, and guardians are monitoring with great interest to see if this approach will become a template for the rest of the world.

The European Momentum

In Europe, a rising chorus of countries are moving toward parallel measures.

• The Danish government has announced a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister arguing that smartphones and apps are "stealing our youngsters' youth". A law could be formalized next year.
• The Norwegian government is planning to enforce a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to shield children from the "influence of the AI".
• Ireland is introducing a online verification tool to verify the identity and age of social media users. The media minister have stated that an Australian-model ban is "an options in reserve".
• In Spain, the leader has called on parliament to approve a bill increasing the minimum age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a legislative committee has suggested a comparable move, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The administration in The Dutch government has urged families to block their children from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has passed a non-binding statement demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 unless parental consent is granted. Although it warns of the "compulsive" quality of these platforms, the resolution does not establish binding law.

"A strong age barrier is a solid starting point," said a leading MEP behind the measure.

Britain: A Cautious Eye

For the United Kingdom, the government has kept open a potential ban, emphasizing that "no option is off the table" but insisting any policy must be "grounded in robust data".

Previously, momentum gathered behind a bill to enact controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually watered down. Nonetheless, the government vowed to conduct more studies the topic.

Charities have raised warnings. A prominent charity set up by the relatives of a girl who died after viewing disturbing platform posts contends that a strict age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of harm when teens turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the refusal of the Silicon Valley to build tools that are secure and fit for children," stated a prominent peer.

The United States: A Fragmented Landscape

Across America, regulation is mostly unfolding at the state level against a backdrop of country-wide inaction.

• Utah mandates adult approval for under-18s to use social media and controls nighttime use.
• Florida has enacted a bill barring children under fourteen from joining social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
• The state of Virginia has approved a rule capping minors to a single hour of social media use per day, with extra time dependent on parental permission.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also enacted bills demanding guardian approval for minors to create social media profiles.

Even with bipartisan support and calls from various figures to copy this path, a nationwide ban is presently seen as unlikely.

Global Perspectives

Outside of the West, further states are likewise considering moves.

• The Malaysian government plans to restrict social media for under-16s effective next year.
• Brazil has lifted the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

However, world agencies take a more cautious position. A major UN agency has advised that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "may even prove counterproductive". The organization notes that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable youth and that bans should not be a "substitute" for social media firms to improve user protection.

As this global conversation evolves, the policies of Australia and others show that policymakers internationally are increasingly willing to stand by for tech companies to self-regulate.