The Australian bold policy to restrict social platforms access for those under 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Officials, child protection groups, and guardians are observing intently to see if this strategy will set a precedent for countries abroad.
The European Momentum
In Europe, a rising group of countries are exploring parallel measures.
- Denmark has announced a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader arguing that mobile devices and networks are "robbing our youngsters' childhood". Legislation is expected to be passed next year.
- Norway is planning to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard young people from the "manipulative force of the recommendation systems".
- Ireland is introducing a digital ID system to confirm the identity and age of social media participants. Officials have indicated that an Australian-model ban remains "an options in reserve".
- In Spain, the leader has called on lawmakers to enact a bill increasing the access age for accessing social media to 16.
- In France, the head of state has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has endorsed a related step, including an overnight "internet blackout" for adolescents.
- The government in the Netherlands has advised parents to block their kids from social media until 15.
At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has approved a symbolic motion supporting a ban for under-16s without guardian approval is provided. Although it warns of the "habit-forming" design of these services, the step does not establish mandatory rules.
"An effective age limit is a good first step," commented the parliamentarian behind the initiative.
The United Kingdom: A Watchful Approach
For the United Kingdom, the administration has not ruled out a possible ban, stating that "nothing is discarded" but insisting any action must be "supported by conclusive evidence".
Last year, interest gathered behind a bill to enact controls on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately modified. Instead, the government committed to investigate the topic.
Advocacy groups have expressed warnings. A prominent charity set up by the family of a teenager who took her own life after encountering disturbing online content contends that a strict age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could lead to a "dangerous transition" of exposure when young people turn 16.
"Australia's ban is a reaction to the inability of the Silicon Valley to design tools that are secure and fit for young users," commented a prominent child protection advocate.
The United States: A State-by-State Landscape
In the United States, legislation is mostly happening at the state level due to national gridlock.
- Utah demands parental consent for under-18s to use social media and controls late-night use.
- Florida has enacted a law banning those below 14 from creating accounts on social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
- Virginia has passed a regulation limiting teenagers to one hour of social media time per day, with any further access needing parental permission.
- The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also enacted measures demanding adult authorization for minors to open social media profiles.
Despite widespread concern and suggestions from certain politicians to copy this path, a US-wide ban is right now seen as improbable.
Global Outlook
Outside of Europe and the US, other countries are also taking action.
- Malaysia aims to ban social media for teenagers starting from next year.
- The Brazilian authorities has lifted the access age for Instagram to 16.
But, international organizations strike a more cautious position. A major UN agency has warned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "might prove counterproductive". The organization points out that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for marginalized children and that bans should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to invest in child safeguards.
Even as this worldwide debate continues, the steps of the Australian government and others show that states globally are less and less willing to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.
