🔗 Share this article

The nation's bold policy to ban social media access for those under 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and families are monitoring closely to see if this tactic will become a template for other nations.

European Momentum

Across Europe, a increasing chorus of nations are considering similar bans.

• Denmark has announced a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM stating that smartphones and platforms are "taking away our kids' innocence". A law is expected to be passed soon.
• The Norwegian government is planning to introduce a minimum age limit of 15, pointing to the need to shield children from the "manipulative force of the AI".
• The Irish government is introducing a digital ID system to verify the user details of social media participants. Officials have stated that an similar ban could be "an tools under consideration".
• In Spain, the president has called on the legislature to enact a law increasing the legal age for using social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a parliamentary commission has endorsed a similar move, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for older teenagers.
• The authorities in The Netherlands has urged families to prevent their children from social media up to the age of 15.

For the broader EU, the EU parliament has approved a advisory motion supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 except if a parent decides otherwise is granted. Although it warns of the "compulsive" nature of these services, the move does not establish mandatory rules.

"A strong age limit is a good first step," said a leading parliamentarian driving the initiative.

Britain: An Evidence-Based Stance

Across Britain, the government has kept open a potential ban, stating that "nothing is off the table" but insisting any policy must be "supported by robust evidence".

Earlier, interest built behind a bill to introduce controls on social media use by minors, but it was ultimately watered down. Instead, the government committed to conduct more studies the topic.

Charities have raised warnings. A prominent charity founded by the relatives of a young person who took her own life after being exposed to dangerous platform posts suggests that a simple age ban could fail to make platforms safer and could create a "cliff edge" of harm when teens become eligible.

"The Australian ban is a response to the refusal of the tech sector to build platforms and apps that are secure and suitable for children," said a leading online safety campaigner.

The United States: A Decentralized Picture

In the United States, legislation is largely unfolding at the local level due to national stalemate.

• The state of Utah demands adult approval for minors to use social media and controls overnight use.
• Florida has enacted a measure prohibiting under-14s from joining social media, though it faces legal challenges.
• Virginia has approved a rule limiting minors to one hour of social media use per day, with any further time dependent on a guardian's okay.
• The state of Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also enacted laws demanding adult authorization for teenagers to open social media presences.

Despite bipartisan support and proposals from certain figures to copy this example, a nationwide ban is presently seen as unlikely.

Global Perspectives

Beyond Europe and the US, other states are similarly taking action.

• The Malaysian government plans to ban social media for teenagers starting from next year.
• The Brazilian authorities has lifted the minimum age for one major platform to 16.

Yet, global agencies adopt a more cautious position. Unicef has cautioned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "may even backfire". The body notes that the internet can be a "lifeline" for marginalized young people and that regulation should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to improve user protection.

As this global conversation continues, the policies of this nation and others show that policymakers internationally are no longer content to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.