The Australian bold move to ban social networking access for those under 16 is sparking debate internationally. Politicians, safety advocates, and families are monitoring with great interest to see if this strategy will become a template for other nations.
European Trend
Across Europe, a rising number of nations are exploring parallel bans.
- The Danish government has stated a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the PM arguing that smartphones and apps are "taking away our youngsters' childhood". The policy could be enacted soon.
- Norway is set to enforce a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to protect children from the "manipulative force of the AI".
- Ireland is developing a online verification tool to confirm the user details of social media participants. The media minister have indicated that an Australian-model ban is "one of the measures in reserve".
- In Spain, the leader has urged the legislature to approve a law lifting the legal age for joining social media to 16.
- In France, the president has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a comparable action, including an overnight "internet blackout" for older teenagers.
- The government in The Netherlands has urged families to restrict their children from social media up to the age of 15.
For the broader EU, the European parliament has passed a non-binding resolution calling for a ban for teenagers under 16 unless guardian approval is provided. While it cautions of the "addictive" nature of these services, the move does not create enforceable legislation.
"A strong age restriction is a useful foundation," stated a leading parliamentarian behind the initiative.
The United Kingdom: A Cautious Stance
In the UK, the administration has remained open to a future ban, emphasizing that "nothing is discarded" but insisting any decision must be "based on robust evidence".
Previously, support built behind a bill to enact limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately watered down. Instead, the administration vowed to further research the issue.
Campaign organizations have raised concerns. An organization established by the loved ones of a young person who took her own life after being exposed to harmful platform posts argues that a strict age ban could fail to improve online safety and could result in a "cliff edge" of exposure when users turn 16.
"The Australian ban is a response to the refusal of the social media companies to create platforms and apps that are secure and suitable for children," said a prominent child protection advocate.
America: A Fragmented Approach
In the United States, legislation is mostly occurring at the state government level due to national inaction.
- The state of Utah demands parental consent for minors to use social media and limits overnight use.
- Florida has passed a bill banning those below 14 from joining social media, though it is subject to constitutional disputes.
- Virginia has approved a regulation capping under-16s to 60 minutes of social media time per day, with additional time requiring adult consent.
- Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have similarly enacted measures requiring adult authorization for minors to set up social media accounts.
Despite bipartisan support and calls from certain figures to mimic this lead, a US-wide ban is presently seen as unlikely.
Global Perspectives
Apart from these regions, other countries are similarly taking action.
- The Malaysian government plans to ban social media for those under sixteen beginning next year.
- Brazil has raised the access age for one major platform to 16.
However, global agencies strike a more measured position. A major UN agency has warned that social media bans pose dangers and "could prove counterproductive". The body notes that the internet can be a "critical link" for marginalized youth and that bans should not be a "excuse" for social media firms to invest in safety.
As this international conversation evolves, the steps of the Australian government and several other countries indicate that governments internationally are less and less prepared to wait for platforms to act voluntarily.
