Will Different States Pursue Australia's in Banning Online Networks for Youth Under Sixteen?

Australia's bold action to restrict social media access for young people below 16 is sparking debate internationally. Officials, child protection groups, and guardians are observing intently to see if this strategy will set a precedent for the rest of the world.

European Trend

Throughout Europe, a rising group of states are moving toward parallel restrictions.

• The Danish government has announced a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM arguing that mobile devices and apps are "stealing our children's childhood". A law is expected to be passed in the coming year.
• The Norwegian government is preparing to enforce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to protect children from the "power of the recommendation systems".
• The Irish government is developing a online verification tool to confirm the age and identity of social media account holders. The media minister have stated that an Australian-model ban is "an options on the table".
• In The Spanish government, the president has called on the legislature to pass a bill raising the legal age for joining social media to 16.
• In The French government, the leader has threatened a ban for those under fifteen, and a government panel has endorsed a related action, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has urged families to block their kids from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has approved a symbolic statement calling for a ban for teenagers under 16 unless parental consent is provided. Although it cautions of the "addictive" design of these apps, the step does not establish binding law.

"An effective age limit is a solid starting point," stated the MEP behind the initiative.

The United Kingdom: A Watchful Stance

In the UK, the leadership has not ruled out a potential ban, emphasizing that "no option is discarded" but stressing any decision must be "based on robust research".

Earlier, interest gathered behind a bill to introduce restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was ultimately modified. Nonetheless, the government vowed to further research the topic.

Charities have expressed warnings. An organization set up by the loved ones of a young person who took her own life after being exposed to harmful social media material contends that a simple age ban could fail to protect children and could create a "cliff edge" of exposure when users become eligible.

"This ban is a reaction to the failure of the Silicon Valley to create products and services that are secure and fit for children," commented a influential child protection advocate.

America: A State-by-State Approach

Across America, action is mostly occurring at the regional level due to country-wide gridlock.

• The state of Utah demands adult approval for minors to use social media and limits late-night use.
• The state of Florida has passed a bill barring those below 14 from joining social media, though it is subject to court battles.
• Virginia has approved a rule limiting under-16s to one hour of social media access per day, with extra time needing a guardian's okay.
• Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also passed laws requiring parental consent for minors to set up social media profiles.

Even with cross-party agreement and calls from various individuals to follow Australia's path, a federal ban is right now seen as improbable.

Global Perspectives

Outside of the West, further countries are also taking action.

• The Malaysian government plans to ban social media for teenagers effective next year.
• Brazil has increased the required age for the platform Instagram to 16.

Yet, global organizations adopt a more cautious stance. The UN children's agency has warned that age-based restrictions have downsides and "may even prove counterproductive". The body notes that online platforms can be a "lifeline" for vulnerable children and that government action should not be a "substitute" for platform operators to invest in user protection.

Even as this global debate unfolds, the actions of the Australian government and its followers show that governments around the world are less and less prepared to stand by for platforms to self-regulate.