🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive action to prohibit social platforms access for young people below 16 is creating waves worldwide. Officials, campaigners, and guardians are observing intently to see if this strategy will set a precedent for other nations.

Across Europe Momentum

Across Europe, a growing number of countries are considering comparable bans.

• The Danish government has announced a ban on social media for youth below 15, with the PM arguing that mobile devices and networks are "stealing our kids' childhood". A law could be enacted next year.
• Norway is set to introduce a access barrier of 15, citing the need to protect the young from the "influence of the recommendation systems".
• Ireland is developing a digital ID system to confirm the age and identity of social media users. The media minister have indicated that an similar ban is "a potential measures on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the prime minister has urged the legislature to approve a proposal lifting the minimum age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has recommended a related move, including an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has urged parents to restrict their kids from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the bloc's legislature has adopted a non-binding statement calling for a ban for minors except if a parent decides otherwise is given. While it warns of the "addictive" quality of these platforms, the step does not create enforceable legislation.

"An effective age barrier is a useful foundation," commented one MEP behind the resolution.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Approach

In the UK, the leadership has remained open to a possible ban, emphasizing that "no option is being dismissed" but stressing any decision must be "based on strong evidence".

Earlier, momentum gathered behind a legislative effort to introduce limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was ultimately modified. Instead, the government vowed to conduct more studies the matter.

Charities have expressed concerns. A prominent charity established by the relatives of a teenager who was lost after being exposed to harmful social media material contends that a simple age ban could fail to protect children and could result in a "cliff edge" of risk when users become eligible.

"This ban is a response to the inability of the social media companies to create platforms and apps that are safe and suitable for children," said a prominent online safety campaigner.

America: A State-by-State Approach

Across America, legislation is primarily happening at the regional government level against a backdrop of federal gridlock.

• The state of Utah mandates parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and controls overnight use.
• Florida has signed a bill prohibiting under-14s from accessing social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has enacted a regulation restricting under-16s to a single hour of social media time per day, with additional use needing a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have similarly enacted measures requiring guardian approval for minors to set up social media profiles.

Despite widespread concern and calls from certain politicians to mimic the Australian example, a US-wide ban is currently seen as unlikely.

Worldwide Perspectives

Outside of Europe and the US, further nations are likewise exploring options.

• Malaysia plans to prohibit social media for under-16s beginning next year.
• Brazil has lifted the access age for Instagram to 16.

But, international bodies adopt a more cautious tone. A major UN agency has warned that social media bans carry risks and "may even backfire". The organization notes that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for isolated children and that bans should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to improve safety.

As this worldwide discussion unfolds, the steps of this nation and others demonstrate that states internationally are no longer willing to stand by for platforms to make changes on their own.