The Australian bold action to restrict social media access for those under 16 is creating waves internationally. Officials, safety advocates, and parents are observing closely to see if this tactic will set a precedent for countries abroad.
The European Movement
In Europe, a rising group of countries are moving toward similar restrictions.
- Denmark has announced a prohibition on social media for under-15s, with the leader declaring that smartphones and networks are "taking away our kids' innocence". Legislation is expected to be enacted in the coming year.
- Norway is planning to enforce a age restriction of 15, citing the need to shield the young from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
- Ireland is introducing a digital ID system to confirm the age and identity of social media account holders. The media minister have stated that an Australia-style ban could be "a potential measures on the table".
- In The Spanish government, the president has urged lawmakers to approve a proposal raising the access age for accessing social media to 16.
- In France, the leader has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a legislative committee has recommended a comparable step, alongside an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
- The authorities in The Netherlands has advised parents to restrict their kids from social media before 15.
Across the European Union, the European parliament has passed a symbolic resolution supporting a ban for minors except if guardian approval is given. While it highlights of the "habit-forming" design of these apps, the step does not enact mandatory rules.
"A clear age limit is a solid foundation," said one parliamentarian supporting the resolution.
The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Stance
In the UK, the administration has not ruled out a potential ban, stating that "no measure is discarded" but stressing any decision must be "supported by robust research".
Previously, interest gathered behind a legislative effort to impose limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end weakened. Instead, the government committed to investigate the issue.
Charities have voiced warnings. A prominent charity established by the loved ones of a teenager who died after being exposed to harmful platform posts suggests that a strict age ban might not protect children and could create a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when teens turn 16.
"The Australian ban is a reaction to the refusal of the social media companies to create products and services that are appropriate and age appropriate for children," stated a leading peer.
The US: A Decentralized Landscape
Stateside, regulation is largely unfolding at the regional government level amid federal gridlock.
- Utah mandates guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and restricts nighttime use.
- Florida has enacted a law banning under-14s from creating accounts on social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
- Virginia has passed a law capping minors to a single hour of social media access per day, with extra access dependent on a guardian's okay.
- The state of Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have also introduced measures mandating parental consent for minors to open social media accounts.
Despite cross-party agreement and proposals from various individuals to mimic this example, a federal ban is currently seen as a distant prospect.
Worldwide Outlook
Beyond the West, further countries are likewise taking action.
- The Malaysian government intends to ban social media for under-16s beginning next year.
- Brazil has lifted the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.
Yet, world bodies adopt a more cautious position. A major UN agency has advised that age-based restrictions carry risks and "could have unintended consequences". The agency points out that the internet can be a "critical link" for vulnerable young people and that bans should not be a "excuse" for platform operators to invest in safety.
As this worldwide discussion evolves, the actions of the Australian government and others demonstrate that governments internationally are less and less prepared to stand by for tech companies to act voluntarily.
