🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive move to prohibit social platforms access for those under 16 is creating waves internationally. Politicians, child protection groups, and guardians are watching with great interest to see if this tactic will set a precedent for the rest of the world.

Across Europe Momentum

Throughout Europe, a rising group of countries are considering parallel restrictions.

• Denmark plans a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the PM stating that smartphones and platforms are "stealing our children's childhood". The policy may be formalized next year.
• Norway is preparing to implement a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard children from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• The Irish government is developing a digital ID system to authenticate the identity and age of social media account holders. Officials have indicated that an Australian-model ban remains "one of the tools on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the president has urged parliament to approve a proposal increasing the legal age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has proposed a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has endorsed a comparable step, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has recommended parents to prevent their youngsters from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the European parliament has passed a advisory resolution supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 unless guardian approval is provided. Although it warns of the "habit-forming" nature of these platforms, the move does not enact binding law.

"A clear age barrier is a good first step," commented the parliamentarian driving the measure.

Britain: A Watchful Stance

For the United Kingdom, the government has not ruled out a potential ban, emphasizing that "no option is being dismissed" but stressing any decision must be "supported by robust evidence".

Last year, support grew behind a bill to introduce restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end weakened. Instead, the administration vowed to conduct more studies the issue.

Advocacy groups have raised apprehensions. A prominent charity founded by the relatives of a teenager who was lost after being exposed to dangerous platform posts contends that a blanket age ban may not protect children and could result in a "cliff edge" of harm when users turn 16.

"This ban is a response to the refusal of the social media companies to build platforms and apps that are secure and age appropriate for minors," commented a influential child protection advocate.

The United States: A Decentralized Picture

Stateside, legislation is largely occurring at the regional level amid federal inaction.

• Utah requires guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and limits overnight use.
• The state of Florida has passed a bill banning those below 14 from accessing social media, though it is subject to constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has approved a law restricting minors to a single hour of social media use per day, with extra use needing a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have similarly enacted laws requiring parental consent for minors to set up social media profiles.

Despite widespread concern and suggestions from certain individuals to copy the Australian example, a federal ban is currently seen as improbable.

International Views

Apart from these regions, other states are likewise considering moves.

• Malaysia intends to prohibit social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• Brazil has raised the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

Yet, international bodies adopt a more nuanced position. Unicef has cautioned that social media bans carry risks and "might have unintended consequences". The organization highlights that the internet can be a "lifeline" for vulnerable youth and that government action should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to improve safety.

Even as this international debate continues, the actions of this nation and its followers demonstrate that states globally are no longer content to stand by for tech companies to act voluntarily.