Australia's bold move to ban social media access for individuals under sixteen is sparking debate around the globe. Politicians, campaigners, and guardians are watching closely to see if this tactic will inspire imitation for countries abroad.
The European Trend
Throughout Europe, a rising chorus of countries are exploring comparable measures.
- Denmark plans a prohibition on social media for under-15s, with the PM arguing that smartphones and apps are "robbing our youngsters' youth". The policy could be enacted next year.
- Norway is set to implement a access barrier of 15, highlighting the need to safeguard children from the "power of the AI".
- The Irish government is developing a online verification tool to verify the user details of social media account holders. The media minister have stated that an similar ban remains "one of the options in reserve".
- In Spain, the prime minister has asked parliament to pass a proposal raising the access age for joining social media to 16.
- In France, the leader has proposed a ban for under-15s, and a legislative committee has recommended a related action, including an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
- The authorities in The Netherlands has recommended families to prevent their children from social media up to the age of 15.
At the EU level, the bloc's legislature has approved a non-binding resolution supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 except if guardian approval is granted. While it cautions of the "addictive" design of these apps, the step does not establish enforceable legislation.
"A clear age restriction is a useful foundation," commented a leading parliamentarian supporting the resolution.
The UK: An Evidence-Based Approach
For the United Kingdom, the government has remained open to a potential ban, stating that "no measure is being dismissed" but stressing any decision must be "grounded in strong evidence".
Earlier, interest built behind a legislative effort to enact controls on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately modified. Instead, the government pledged to investigate the matter.
Charities have raised concerns. An organization set up by the relatives of a teenager who took her own life after being exposed to disturbing social media material suggests that a blanket age ban may not protect children and could lead to a "cliff edge" of harm when young people become eligible.
"Australia's ban is a answer to the refusal of the tech sector to build tools that are secure and suitable for young users," commented a leading online safety campaigner.
The United States: A State-by-State Picture
In the United States, action is largely occurring at the regional level amid national stalemate.
- Utah requires adult approval for minors to use social media and controls overnight use.
- Florida has passed a law banning children under fourteen from joining social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
- Virginia has enacted a law limiting minors to one hour of social media time per day, with any further time dependent on a guardian's okay.
- Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also introduced measures mandating parental consent for under-16s to create social media profiles.
Despite bipartisan support and proposals from some figures to mimic Australia's lead, a federal ban is presently seen as a distant prospect.
International Perspectives
Apart from Europe and the US, other nations are also taking action.
- Malaysia aims to restrict social media for those under sixteen beginning next year.
- Brazil has raised the access age for Instagram to 16.
But, world agencies take a more nuanced tone. The UN children's agency has cautioned that social media bans carry risks and "may even prove counterproductive". The agency points out that social networks can be a "critical link" for isolated young people and that bans should not be a "excuse" for platform operators to invest in child safeguards.
Even as this international debate unfolds, the policies of this nation and its followers show that policymakers internationally are less and less prepared to stand by for platforms to act voluntarily.
