Australia's bold move to ban social media access for those under 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Politicians, child protection groups, and guardians are monitoring intently to see if this strategy will set a precedent for other nations.
The European Trend
Throughout Europe, a increasing group of states are considering similar restrictions.
- Denmark has announced a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the leader arguing that phones and platforms are "stealing our children's innocence". A law could be formalized in the coming year.
- The Norwegian government is set to introduce a age restriction of 15, pointing to the need to protect children from the "power of the AI".
- The Irish government is developing a digital wallet to confirm the identity and age of social media users. Authorities have stated that an Australia-style ban could be "one of the options under consideration".
- In The Spanish government, the president has called on the legislature to enact a proposal lifting the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
- In France, the leader has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has recommended a related step, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
- The government in The Dutch government has recommended guardians to block their youngsters from social media until 15.
For the broader EU, the bloc's legislature has adopted a symbolic resolution supporting a ban for minors unless a parent decides otherwise is given. Although it highlights of the "habit-forming" design of these platforms, the step does not establish binding law.
"An effective age limit is a useful starting point," stated the parliamentarian supporting the initiative.
Britain: A Cautious Approach
Across Britain, the administration has not ruled out a potential ban, emphasizing that "no measure is discarded" but maintaining any decision must be "supported by robust data".
Previously, support gathered behind a proposal to enact restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was in the end weakened. Instead, the administration vowed to further research the issue.
Campaign organizations have voiced apprehensions. A prominent charity set up by the family of a girl who was lost after encountering disturbing platform posts suggests that a blanket age ban might not protect children and could result in a "cliff edge" of harm when teens become eligible.
"Australia's ban is a reaction to the failure of the social media companies to build platforms and apps that are safe and suitable for children," commented a leading child protection advocate.
The United States: A State-by-State Picture
Stateside, action is primarily happening at the state government level amid country-wide inaction.
- 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 law prohibiting children under fourteen from joining social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
- Virginia has approved a law restricting minors to a single hour of social media use per day, with additional time needing a guardian's okay.
- Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly passed laws demanding adult authorization for teenagers to create social media presences.
Despite bipartisan support and suggestions from various politicians to copy the Australian example, a federal ban is presently seen as unlikely.
Global Perspectives
Outside of these regions, other states are also taking action.
- The Malaysian government plans to ban social media for under-16s effective next year.
- Brazil has increased the minimum age for the platform Instagram to 16.
But, global bodies strike a more cautious tone. The UN children's agency has advised that social media bans carry risks and "might prove counterproductive". The agency highlights that the internet can be a "critical link" for isolated young people and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for social media firms to improve user protection.
Even as this global discussion unfolds, the steps of the Australian government and several other countries show that governments internationally are no longer prepared to stand by for platforms to make changes on their own.
