🔗 Share this article

The nation's decisive action to prohibit social media access for young people below 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Politicians, safety advocates, and guardians are monitoring intently to see if this approach will inspire imitation for countries abroad.

European Movement

In Europe, a rising group of countries are considering comparable measures.

• Denmark has stated a ban on social media for under-15s, with the prime minister stating that phones and networks are "taking away our youngsters' youth". A law may be formalized next year.
• Norway is preparing to enforce a age restriction of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard children from the "manipulative force of the algorithms".
• Ireland is developing a online verification tool to confirm the user details of social media account holders. Authorities have stated that an similar ban could be "a potential tools on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the prime minister has called on parliament to approve a law raising the legal age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the leader has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has suggested a similar action, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The administration in the Netherlands has recommended parents to block their children from social media up to the age of 15.

At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has passed a advisory statement supporting a ban for under-16s without a parent decides otherwise is given. Although it cautions of the "addictive" design of these platforms, the step does not create mandatory rules.

"A strong age limit is a good starting point," commented one MEP driving the measure.

The UK: A Cautious Stance

Across Britain, the government has remained open to a possible ban, stating that "nothing is discarded" but insisting any policy must be "based on conclusive evidence".

Previously, support gathered behind a bill to introduce limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was in the end modified. Nonetheless, the administration committed to conduct more studies the matter.

Campaign organizations have expressed warnings. An organization set up by the loved ones of a girl who died after being exposed to dangerous social media material suggests that a simple age ban may not protect children and could create a "cliff edge" of risk when young people become eligible.

"This ban is a reaction to the inability of the tech sector to design platforms and apps that are safe and fit for minors," said a influential online safety campaigner.

America: A State-by-State Landscape

In the United States, legislation is largely occurring at the local level against a backdrop of country-wide inaction.

• Utah mandates guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and limits late-night use.
• Florida has signed a law banning children under fourteen from creating accounts on social media, though it is subject to legal challenges.
• Virginia has passed a rule limiting teenagers to 60 minutes of social media time per day, with additional use dependent on parental permission.
• Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have similarly introduced measures demanding guardian approval for minors to create social media presences.

Despite bipartisan support and suggestions from some individuals to mimic Australia's path, a US-wide ban is right now seen as improbable.

Global Views

Outside of these regions, other countries are also exploring options.

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

However, international bodies take a more nuanced stance. The UN children's agency has cautioned that age-based restrictions have downsides and "might have unintended consequences". The agency points out that social networks can be a "critical link" for isolated young people and that government action should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to invest in safety.

As this worldwide debate evolves, the steps of this nation and its followers indicate that policymakers globally are no longer prepared to delay for tech companies to make changes on their own.