The nation's controversial policy to prohibit social media access for young people below 16 is creating waves around the globe. Officials, campaigners, and guardians are watching with great interest to see if this strategy will become a template for countries abroad.
European Trend
Throughout Europe, a increasing number of nations are considering similar measures.
- Denmark plans a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the PM declaring that phones and networks are "stealing our children's innocence". Legislation could be formalized in the coming year.
- Norway is set to enforce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to protect children from the "manipulative force of the recommendation systems".
- The Irish government is working on a online verification tool to authenticate the identity and age of social media participants. Officials have suggested that an similar ban remains "an measures under consideration".
- In Spain, the leader has asked the legislature to pass a proposal raising the minimum age for accessing social media to 16.
- In France, the president has floated the idea of a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has suggested a comparable move, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
- The administration in The Netherlands has urged parents to block their youngsters from social media up to the age of 15.
At the EU level, the EU parliament has passed a advisory resolution supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 except if a parent decides otherwise is given. While it warns of the "addictive" quality of these apps, the move does not create mandatory rules.
"A clear age limit is a solid starting point," commented one MEP behind the measure.
Britain: An Evidence-Based Eye
In the UK, the leadership has remained open to a future ban, arguing that "no measure is discarded" but insisting any action must be "supported by strong data".
Last year, support grew behind a legislative effort to introduce controls on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately modified. Nonetheless, the government vowed to further research the topic.
Campaign organizations have expressed concerns. A prominent charity set up by the family of a teenager who died after being exposed to harmful platform posts contends that a blanket age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could result in a "cliff edge" of exposure when teens reach the legal age.
"Australia's ban is a response to the failure of the social media companies to create tools that are safe and fit for minors," said a leading peer.
The United States: A State-by-State Picture
In the United States, regulation is mostly happening at the state level against a backdrop of country-wide gridlock.
- The state of Utah demands adult approval for under-18s to use social media and limits nighttime use.
- Florida has signed a law prohibiting those below 14 from joining social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
- Virginia has enacted a rule capping minors to one hour of social media access per day, with extra access requiring parental permission.
- Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly enacted bills requiring guardian approval for teenagers to set up social media profiles.
Despite widespread concern and proposals from certain figures to mimic Australia's path, a federal ban is currently seen as unlikely.
International Views
Apart from these regions, additional countries are likewise considering moves.
- Malaysia aims to ban social media for those under sixteen effective next year.
- Brazil has increased the minimum age for Instagram to 16.
Yet, global bodies strike a more cautious position. The UN children's agency has cautioned that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "may even backfire". The agency notes that online platforms can be a "critical link" for isolated young people and that bans should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to invest in child safeguards.
Even as this international debate continues, the steps of the Australian government and several other countries indicate that states internationally are no longer prepared to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.
