🔗 Share this article Might Additional Countries Follow Australia's in Prohibiting Online Networks for Under-16s? The nation's decisive policy to ban social media access for those under 16 is sending ripples worldwide. Politicians, child protection groups, and families are watching with great interest to see if this tactic will become a template for countries abroad. The European Movement Throughout Europe, a growing chorus of nations are moving toward comparable bans. Denmark has announced a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the prime minister declaring that smartphones and networks are "taking away our children's childhood". A law could be passed soon. The Norwegian government is planning to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to protect children from the "manipulative force of the AI". Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to confirm the identity and age of social media users. Officials have suggested that an similar ban could be "an options on the table". In Spain, the president has urged the legislature to enact a bill increasing the minimum age for using social media to 16. In France, the head of state has threatened a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has endorsed a comparable action, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for older teenagers. The administration in The Netherlands has recommended parents to prevent their children from social media up to the age of 15. At the EU level, the European parliament has passed a non-binding resolution demanding a ban for teenagers under 16 unless parental consent is granted. Even though it cautions of the "compulsive" quality of these apps, the resolution does not create enforceable legislation. "A clear age barrier is a solid first step," stated one parliamentarian driving the resolution. The UK: An Evidence-Based Eye For the United Kingdom, the government has not ruled out a future ban, emphasizing that "no measure is off the table" but insisting any policy must be "grounded in conclusive research". Last year, interest built behind a bill to impose restrictions on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately weakened. Nonetheless, the government pledged to further research the matter. Charities have expressed warnings. One foundation founded by the loved ones of a teenager who was lost after being exposed to dangerous online content contends that a simple age ban may not protect children and could result in a "dangerous transition" of harm when users turn 16. "This ban is a response to the refusal of the Silicon Valley to create platforms and apps that are safe and age appropriate for young users," commented a leading peer. The US: A Decentralized Picture Stateside, legislation is mostly occurring at the state level against a backdrop of federal gridlock. Utah requires parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and restricts late-night use. Florida has passed a bill barring under-14s from joining social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes. Virginia has approved a rule limiting under-16s to a single hour of social media access per day, with any further access requiring adult consent. Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise passed laws requiring guardian approval for minors to open social media presences. Even with widespread concern and calls from some individuals to copy this path, a US-wide ban is presently seen as improbable. Global Views Beyond Europe and the US, additional states are similarly taking action. The Malaysian government intends to restrict social media for under-16s beginning next year. Brazil has raised the required age for Instagram to 16. But, world organizations adopt a more measured stance. A major UN agency has cautioned that blanket prohibitions carry risks and "may even have unintended consequences". The organization notes that social networks can be a "lifeline" for isolated youth and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to prioritize safety. Even as this international discussion continues, the steps of the Australian government and its followers demonstrate that policymakers internationally are less and less willing to delay for platforms to act voluntarily.