The nation's bold move to ban social platforms access for young people below 16 is sparking debate around the globe. Politicians, safety advocates, and families are monitoring intently to see if this approach will become a template for the rest of the world.
The European Movement
Throughout Europe, a growing group of countries are considering similar measures.
- Denmark has stated a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the leader declaring that smartphones and apps are "stealing our youngsters' innocence". A law is expected to be passed next year.
- Norway is preparing to introduce a age restriction of 15, highlighting the need to shield the young from the "power of the algorithms".
- The Irish government is introducing a online verification tool to confirm the user details of social media participants. Officials have stated that an Australia-style ban remains "one of the tools on the table".
- In Spain, the president has urged lawmakers to enact a law increasing the access age for using social media to 16.
- In France, the leader has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has endorsed a comparable action, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
- The authorities in The Dutch government has urged parents to prevent their kids from social media until 15.
Across the European Union, the European parliament has approved a non-binding motion calling for a ban for minors unless parental consent is given. While it warns of the "compulsive" quality of these platforms, the move does not create binding law.
"A clear age restriction is a solid foundation," stated the European lawmaker driving the resolution.
Britain: A Watchful Eye
Across Britain, the administration has remained open to a potential ban, arguing that "no option is off the table" but stressing any decision must be "grounded in conclusive evidence".
Last year, momentum grew behind a legislative effort to enact controls on social media use by minors, but it was eventually weakened. However, the government pledged to further research the issue.
Campaign organizations have expressed warnings. One foundation set up by the loved ones of a girl who took her own life after viewing harmful platform posts contends that a strict age ban could fail to protect children and could lead to a "dangerous transition" of harm when teens become eligible.
"This ban is a response to the refusal of the social media companies to create platforms and apps that are safe and age appropriate for young users," stated a leading online safety campaigner.
The US: A Fragmented Approach
In the United States, legislation is primarily occurring at the regional government level against a backdrop of federal inaction.
- The state of Utah requires parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and controls nighttime use.
- The state of Florida has enacted a bill barring under-14s from accessing social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
- Virginia has enacted a law capping under-16s to one hour of social media use per day, with any further use requiring a guardian's okay.
- The state of Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have also enacted bills demanding parental consent for teenagers to open social media profiles.
Even with bipartisan support and proposals from various politicians to copy the Australian lead, a US-wide ban is currently seen as improbable.
International Views
Beyond Europe and the US, other nations are also exploring options.
- The Malaysian government plans to restrict social media for teenagers starting from next year.
- Brazil has raised the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.
But, global agencies adopt a more cautious tone. Unicef has cautioned that social media bans have downsides and "might have unintended consequences". The agency notes that the internet can be a "lifeline" for isolated youth and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to invest in user protection.
As this worldwide conversation continues, the steps of this nation and several other countries show that governments internationally are no longer content to delay for the industry to act voluntarily.
