The nation's bold move to prohibit social networking access for individuals under sixteen is sparking debate worldwide. Lawmakers, campaigners, and families are watching intently to see if this strategy will inspire imitation for countries abroad.
Across Europe Momentum
Across Europe, a increasing number of nations are exploring comparable bans.
- Denmark has announced a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM stating that phones and platforms are "stealing our kids' innocence". Legislation may be enacted soon.
- The Norwegian government is preparing to implement a minimum age limit of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard children from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
- Ireland is working on a digital ID system to confirm the identity and age of social media users. Authorities have suggested that an similar ban is "an measures under consideration".
- In Spain, the leader has called on parliament to enact a bill raising the legal age for using 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, alongside an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
- The government in the Netherlands has recommended families to prevent their kids from social media up to the age of 15.
At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has passed a symbolic motion demanding a ban for minors without a parent decides otherwise is granted. Although it cautions of the "habit-forming" quality of these apps, the move does not enact binding law.
"A strong age restriction is a solid foundation," said one MEP behind the measure.
The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Stance
For the United Kingdom, the government has remained open to a future ban, arguing that "no measure is off the table" but maintaining any action must be "grounded in conclusive research".
Last year, momentum grew behind a proposal to impose restrictions on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately weakened. However, the administration pledged to further research the matter.
Charities have expressed concerns. One foundation set up by the loved ones of a young person who died after viewing disturbing social media material contends that a strict age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could result in a "sudden drop-off" of exposure when young people turn 16.
"Australia's ban is a response to the failure of the social media companies to build products and services that are appropriate and suitable for young users," said a prominent online safety campaigner.
The United States: A Fragmented Picture
Across America, legislation is primarily happening at the regional level due to country-wide inaction.
- The state of Utah requires guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and limits late-night use.
- Florida has signed a bill barring under-14s from accessing social media, though it is entangled in court battles.
- The state of Virginia has approved a regulation capping minors to a single hour of social media time per day, with extra access requiring adult consent.
- Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have also passed bills mandating parental consent for under-16s to create social media accounts.
Despite bipartisan support and suggestions from some politicians to follow the Australian example, a nationwide ban is right now seen as unlikely.
International Outlook
Beyond these regions, additional states are likewise considering moves.
- Malaysia plans to prohibit social media for under-16s beginning next year.
- Brazil has lifted the minimum age for one major platform to 16.
But, international bodies adopt a more cautious tone. Unicef has advised that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "might backfire". The organization highlights that social networks can be a "vital connection" for marginalized youth and that government action should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to invest in child safeguards.
As this international discussion evolves, the policies of the Australian government and its followers show that policymakers internationally are less and less willing to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.
