🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial policy to restrict social media access for individuals under sixteen is creating waves internationally. Politicians, child protection groups, and parents are observing 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 number of nations are exploring similar restrictions.

• Denmark has stated a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM arguing that phones and platforms are "stealing our kids' youth". The policy may be formalized next year.
• Norway is planning to implement a access barrier of 15, citing the need to shield children from the "manipulative force of the recommendation systems".
• The Irish government is introducing a digital ID system to verify the user details of social media participants. Officials have stated that an similar ban is "a potential tools on the table".
• In Spain, the prime minister has asked lawmakers to enact a proposal lifting the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In The French government, the president has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has suggested a comparable action, including an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has urged families to prevent their children from social media until 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has adopted a non-binding statement demanding a ban for under-16s unless guardian approval is granted. While it highlights of the "compulsive" nature of these services, the move does not enact enforceable legislation.

"A strong age limit is a solid foundation," said the parliamentarian supporting the resolution.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Stance

For the United Kingdom, the government has remained open to a possible ban, stating that "no option is off the table" but insisting any action must be "based on conclusive evidence".

Previously, support grew behind a proposal to enact limits on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately weakened. However, the administration committed to further research the topic.

Advocacy groups have voiced concerns. A prominent charity established by the relatives of a girl who was lost after encountering disturbing online content argues that a simple age ban may not improve online safety and could create a "sudden drop-off" of harm when users reach the legal age.

"Australia's ban is a reaction to the failure of the social media companies to create tools that are secure and suitable for young users," said a influential child protection advocate.

The United States: A State-by-State Landscape

Stateside, legislation is largely occurring at the regional level against a backdrop of country-wide inaction.

• The state of Utah mandates guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and limits nighttime use.
• The state of Florida has enacted a law barring under-14s from joining social media, though it is subject to court battles.
• Virginia has approved a rule restricting teenagers to one hour of social media access per day, with any further use dependent on adult consent.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also passed measures mandating parental consent for under-16s to create social media presences.

Despite bipartisan support and suggestions from some figures to copy Australia's example, a nationwide ban is presently seen as a distant prospect.

Worldwide Views

Apart from these regions, other nations are likewise taking action.

• The Malaysian government intends to restrict social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• Brazil has lifted the minimum age for Instagram to 16.

However, global organizations strike a more cautious tone. Unicef has warned that blanket prohibitions pose dangers and "may even have unintended consequences". The body notes that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for isolated children and that government action should not be a "substitute" for social media firms to improve safety.

Even as this international conversation unfolds, the steps of Australia and others demonstrate that policymakers internationally are no longer prepared to delay for the industry to self-regulate.