🔗 Share this article Will Additional Countries Emulate Australia's Example in Restricting Social Platforms for Under-16s? The Australian decisive policy to ban social networking access for young people below 16 is sending ripples worldwide. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and parents are monitoring with great interest to see if this tactic will become a template for other nations. The European Momentum Across Europe, a rising number of countries are considering comparable restrictions. The Danish government plans a ban on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM arguing that mobile devices and platforms are "robbing our kids' childhood". The policy may be passed in the coming year. Norway is set to enforce a age restriction of 15, pointing to the need to shield children from the "power of the AI". Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to verify the user details of social media account holders. Officials have stated that an Australian-model ban could be "an measures on the table". In The Spanish government, the president has urged parliament to enact a law lifting the minimum age for accessing social media to 16. In France, the president has floated the idea of a ban for those under fifteen, and a legislative committee has suggested a comparable move, including an overnight "internet blackout" for older teenagers. The authorities in the Netherlands has urged families to restrict their youngsters from social media before 15. At the EU level, the European parliament has passed a non-binding motion supporting a ban for minors unless parental consent is given. Although it highlights of the "addictive" nature of these services, the step does not create enforceable legislation. "A strong age barrier is a useful first step," stated one European lawmaker driving the measure. The UK: A Cautious Approach In the UK, the government has remained open to a future ban, emphasizing that "no measure is off the table" but maintaining any policy must be "grounded in conclusive evidence". Earlier, momentum gathered behind a bill to introduce limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was ultimately modified. Instead, the government vowed to investigate the matter. Charities have voiced apprehensions. An organization established by the relatives of a teenager who was lost after encountering disturbing platform posts suggests that a blanket age ban might not make platforms safer and could create a "cliff edge" of harm when young people become eligible. "This ban is a response to the inability of the Silicon Valley to create products and services that are appropriate and fit for young users," stated a influential online safety campaigner. America: A Decentralized Landscape Stateside, legislation is mostly happening at the state level amid national inaction. Utah requires guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and controls nighttime use. Florida has enacted a law banning children under fourteen from joining social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes. The state of Virginia has enacted a regulation limiting teenagers to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with any further access requiring adult consent. Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also introduced bills demanding parental consent for teenagers to set up social media accounts. Despite bipartisan support and proposals from some individuals to mimic the Australian lead, a US-wide ban is currently seen as a distant prospect. Worldwide Views Beyond these regions, further nations are likewise considering moves. Malaysia plans to ban social media for those under sixteen starting from next year. Brazil has raised the required age for one major platform to 16. However, global organizations take a more nuanced stance. A major UN agency has warned that social media bans have downsides and "could backfire". The organization highlights that the internet can be a "critical link" for vulnerable youth and that regulation should not be a "substitute" for tech companies to invest in safety. Even as this global discussion continues, the policies of the Australian government and others indicate that states internationally are no longer prepared to delay for platforms to act voluntarily.