🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive move to ban social platforms access for those under 16 is sending ripples internationally. Lawmakers, campaigners, and guardians are watching closely to see if this strategy will inspire imitation for other nations.

The European Trend

In Europe, a growing number of states are exploring comparable bans.

• Denmark plans a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader declaring that phones and networks are "taking away our youngsters' innocence". A law is expected to be passed soon.
• Norway is preparing to enforce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to safeguard the young from the "manipulative force of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is working on a digital wallet to authenticate the age and identity of social media participants. Authorities have suggested that an Australia-style ban is "a potential tools in reserve".
• In The Spanish government, the leader has urged lawmakers to pass a proposal lifting the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In The French government, the leader has proposed a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has suggested a similar action, potentially involving an overnight "internet blackout" for adolescents.
• The government in The Dutch government has recommended parents to restrict their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the EU parliament has approved a symbolic resolution supporting a ban for under-16s except if a parent decides otherwise is granted. Although it highlights of the "addictive" nature of these apps, the move does not create binding law.

"A clear age barrier is a useful starting point," said one MEP driving the measure.

The United Kingdom: A Watchful Stance

For the United Kingdom, the government has kept open a potential ban, emphasizing that "nothing is off the table" but insisting any policy must be "supported by robust evidence".

Earlier, support built behind a bill to enact restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end watered down. Instead, the administration vowed to investigate the issue.

Advocacy groups have voiced apprehensions. One foundation founded by the family of a teenager who was lost after encountering harmful social media material contends that a blanket age ban may not make platforms safer and could create a "dangerous transition" of harm when users become eligible.

"The Australian ban is a response to the inability of the social media companies to build products and services that are appropriate and fit for children," said a prominent peer.

The US: A Fragmented Approach

Across America, regulation is largely occurring at the local level against a backdrop of federal gridlock.

• Utah demands guardian permission for minors to use social media and controls late-night use.
• The state of Florida has signed a bill banning those below 14 from joining social media, though it is subject to court battles.
• Virginia has approved a rule capping teenagers to a single hour of social media time per day, with any further use needing adult consent.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have likewise introduced measures demanding guardian approval for under-16s to set up social media accounts.

Even with widespread concern and proposals from certain politicians to mimic Australia's example, a US-wide ban is right now seen as a distant prospect.

International Perspectives

Outside of these regions, additional states are likewise exploring options.

• The Malaysian government aims to restrict social media for those under sixteen effective next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the access age for the platform Instagram to 16.

However, world bodies adopt a more nuanced stance. Unicef has warned that age-based restrictions pose dangers and "might backfire". The body points out that social networks can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable youth and that regulation should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to invest in safety.

While this international discussion unfolds, the actions of Australia and its followers show that states internationally are less and less prepared to delay for platforms to act voluntarily.