Australia's controversial move to ban social platforms access for those under 16 is sending ripples around the globe. Lawmakers, campaigners, and parents are watching with great interest to see if this approach will set a precedent for other nations.
Across Europe Trend
Across Europe, a increasing chorus of states are moving toward parallel measures.
- Denmark plans a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the prime minister stating that smartphones and apps are "taking away our youngsters' innocence". A law is expected to be passed in the coming year.
- Norway is preparing to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, pointing to the need to shield the young from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
- The Irish government is introducing a digital ID system to authenticate the age and identity of social media users. Officials have indicated that an Australia-style ban remains "one of the options in reserve".
- In Spain, the president has asked lawmakers to pass a bill lifting the access age for joining social media to 16.
- In France, the head of state has floated the idea of a ban for children below 15, and a legislative committee has recommended a related move, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
- The authorities in The Netherlands has urged guardians to restrict their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.
Across the European Union, the EU parliament has passed a advisory motion calling for a ban for minors except if a parent decides otherwise is provided. While it highlights of the "habit-forming" quality of these services, the resolution does not enact binding law.
"A strong age restriction is a solid starting point," stated the MEP driving the resolution.
Britain: An Evidence-Based Approach
Across Britain, the government has kept open a possible ban, emphasizing that "no option is being dismissed" but insisting any decision must be "supported by robust evidence".
Previously, support built behind a legislative effort to introduce limits on social media use by minors, but it was eventually watered down. However, the government pledged to conduct more studies the issue.
Campaign organizations have raised concerns. An organization set up by the loved ones of a young person who died after being exposed to harmful social media material contends that a blanket age ban may not 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 tech sector to design platforms and apps that are secure and fit for minors," said a influential child protection advocate.
The United States: A Decentralized Approach
In the United States, action is primarily occurring at the state government level amid federal inaction.
- Utah demands adult approval for under-18s to use social media and controls overnight use.
- Florida has passed a measure banning those below 14 from joining social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
- The state of Virginia has enacted a law limiting under-16s to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with extra access dependent on parental permission.
- The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly passed bills mandating parental consent for minors to open social media accounts.
Even with bipartisan support and proposals from some politicians to copy this path, a nationwide ban is right now seen as unlikely.
Global Views
Apart from these regions, additional states are also considering moves.
- The Malaysian government plans to prohibit social media for those under sixteen beginning next year.
- Brazil has increased the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.
But, international organizations take a more measured position. The UN children's agency has warned that social media bans carry risks and "could prove counterproductive". The organization notes that social networks can be a "lifeline" for isolated young people and that bans should not be a "excuse" for tech companies to invest in safety.
While this global debate evolves, the policies of the Australian government and its followers show that policymakers globally are less and less prepared to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.
