🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive move to restrict social networking access for individuals under sixteen is sparking debate internationally. Politicians, child protection groups, and families are monitoring with great interest to see if this tactic will inspire imitation for countries abroad.

Across Europe Momentum

In Europe, a growing chorus of nations are considering comparable measures.

• Denmark plans a restriction on social media for youth below 15, with the leader arguing that mobile devices and networks are "robbing our kids' childhood". The policy may be passed in the coming year.
• Norway is planning to introduce a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to shield the young from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• The Irish government is introducing a digital ID system to confirm the user details of social media users. The media minister have indicated that an Australian-model ban could be "a potential options on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the president has called on the legislature to pass a law raising the legal age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a related step, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has urged parents to block their kids from social media until 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has adopted a advisory motion demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 unless parental consent is granted. While it cautions of the "addictive" design of these services, the resolution does not enact enforceable legislation.

"A clear age limit is a useful first step," commented the European lawmaker driving the initiative.

The United Kingdom: A Watchful Eye

In the UK, the government has remained open to a possible ban, stating that "nothing is being dismissed" but maintaining any decision must be "grounded in strong evidence".

Earlier, momentum grew behind a bill to introduce restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually weakened. Instead, the administration committed to further research the issue.

Charities have raised warnings. One foundation established by the relatives of a teenager who took her own life after being exposed to disturbing online content argues that a blanket age ban might not protect children and could lead to a "sudden drop-off" of risk when users turn 16.

"Australia's ban is a answer to the refusal of the Silicon Valley to build platforms and apps that are secure and fit for children," commented a influential peer.

The US: A Fragmented Approach

Stateside, action is primarily unfolding at the state level amid national stalemate.

• Utah mandates adult approval for minors to use social media and restricts nighttime use.
• Florida has enacted a measure barring children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it faces court battles.
• The state of Virginia has passed a rule capping minors to one hour of social media time per day, with any further use dependent on a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise passed bills requiring parental consent for minors to open social media presences.

Even with cross-party agreement and proposals from some figures to mimic the Australian example, a US-wide ban is right now seen as unlikely.

Global Outlook

Apart from Europe and the US, additional nations are similarly considering moves.

• Malaysia aims to ban social media for teenagers starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has increased the minimum age for one major platform to 16.

Yet, global agencies take a more measured stance. The UN children's agency has advised that age-based restrictions have downsides and "could backfire". The agency highlights that the internet can be a "critical link" for vulnerable children and that regulation should not be a "excuse" for platform operators to prioritize user protection.

As this worldwide discussion unfolds, the actions of Australia and several other countries demonstrate that states internationally are less and less prepared to delay for platforms to self-regulate.