Could Additional Countries Follow Australia's in Prohibiting Social Media for Youth Under Sixteen?

The Australian decisive action to ban social platforms access for those under 16 is sending ripples internationally. Politicians, campaigners, and parents are watching closely to see if this tactic will become a template for other nations.

Across Europe Movement

Across Europe, a rising chorus of countries are exploring parallel restrictions.

• Denmark has announced a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the prime minister stating that mobile devices and networks are "taking away our youngsters' youth". A law could be passed next year.
• Norway is set to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to safeguard children from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• The Irish government is developing a digital wallet to authenticate the identity and age of social media users. Authorities have indicated that an similar ban is "one of the options on the table".
• In Spain, the prime minister has called on the legislature to pass a proposal lifting the access age for accessing social media to 16.
• In France, the president has threatened a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a similar move, alongside an overnight "digital curfew" for adolescents.
• The government in The Netherlands has urged parents to restrict their children from social media before 15.

For the broader EU, the European parliament has approved a symbolic motion calling for a ban for minors except if parental consent is granted. Even though it cautions of the "addictive" quality of these apps, the move does not establish binding law.

"An effective age limit is a good starting point," said one European lawmaker behind the initiative.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Stance

Across Britain, the government has remained open to a potential ban, arguing that "nothing is discarded" but maintaining any action must be "based on robust data".

Earlier, momentum grew behind a legislative effort to enact restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately weakened. However, the administration pledged to investigate the matter.

Campaign organizations have expressed concerns. One foundation set up by the relatives of a teenager who died after being exposed to harmful platform posts suggests that a simple age ban might not protect children and could lead to a "dangerous transition" of harm when young people turn 16.

"The Australian ban is a answer to the refusal of the social media companies to create tools that are secure and suitable for children," commented a prominent peer.

The US: A State-by-State Approach

In the United States, legislation is largely happening at the regional level against a backdrop of national gridlock.

• Utah mandates guardian permission for under-18s to use social media and controls late-night use.
• Florida has enacted a bill barring children under fourteen from joining social media, though it faces constitutional disputes.
• Virginia has passed a rule limiting under-16s to one hour of social media access per day, with extra time needing adult consent.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have similarly introduced bills requiring guardian approval for teenagers to open social media presences.

Even with widespread concern and calls from various politicians to follow this lead, a US-wide ban is right now seen as unlikely.

Global Perspectives

Outside of the West, other states are likewise taking action.

• Malaysia aims to prohibit social media for teenagers starting from next year.
• Brazil has raised the minimum age for Instagram to 16.

However, global agencies strike a more cautious stance. A major UN agency has warned that social media bans carry risks and "might backfire". The organization points out that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for marginalized youth and that government action should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to improve safety.

While this international debate evolves, the actions of this nation and others demonstrate that policymakers around the world are less and less content to delay for tech companies to act voluntarily.