🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive action to ban social networking access for young people below 16 is creating waves internationally. Lawmakers, campaigners, and guardians are monitoring intently to see if this approach will set a precedent for other nations.

European Movement

Throughout Europe, a growing number of nations are considering parallel measures.

• The Danish government has announced a prohibition on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM declaring that smartphones and networks are "stealing our children's youth". A law could be passed in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is set to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, pointing to the need to protect the young from the "power of the AI".
• Ireland is developing a digital wallet to verify the identity and age of social media users. Officials have suggested that an similar ban could be "a potential options under consideration".
• In Spain, the leader has urged the legislature to approve a bill raising the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In The French government, the president has proposed a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has suggested a comparable action, including an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has urged guardians to restrict their children from social media before 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has approved a non-binding statement demanding a ban for under-16s except if guardian approval is granted. Although it warns of the "compulsive" nature of these apps, the resolution does not create enforceable legislation.

"An effective age barrier is a good foundation," said the parliamentarian driving the initiative.

The UK: An Evidence-Based Approach

Across Britain, the leadership has remained open to a possible ban, emphasizing that "no measure is being dismissed" but stressing any policy must be "based on strong research".

Previously, interest grew behind a legislative effort to impose limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end watered down. Nonetheless, the administration pledged to conduct more studies the matter.

Advocacy groups have raised concerns. An organization established by the loved ones of a young person who was lost after being exposed to harmful online content contends that a blanket age ban may not protect children and could create a "dangerous transition" of exposure when young people reach the legal age.

"This ban is a response to the refusal of the social media companies to build products and services that are safe and fit for minors," stated a prominent online safety campaigner.

The United States: A Fragmented Picture

Across America, legislation is largely unfolding at the state level against a backdrop of country-wide stalemate.

• The state of Utah mandates guardian permission for minors to use social media and restricts overnight use.
• Florida has passed a measure banning those below 14 from joining social media, though it is subject to court battles.
• Virginia has passed a regulation capping under-16s to one hour of social media time per day, with any further time dependent on a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise enacted laws demanding parental consent for under-16s to set up social media accounts.

Despite widespread concern and suggestions from various figures to copy this lead, a federal ban is right now seen as unlikely.

Global Perspectives

Outside of these regions, further states are similarly taking action.

• Malaysia intends to prohibit social media for teenagers beginning next year.
• Brazil has lifted the minimum age for one major platform to 16.

However, global agencies take a more nuanced tone. A major UN agency has cautioned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "could prove counterproductive". The body notes that social networks can be a "critical link" for marginalized youth and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for tech companies to invest in child safeguards.

As this worldwide conversation evolves, the policies of the Australian government and several other countries indicate that governments internationally are less and less content to wait for platforms to act voluntarily.