🔗 Share this article

The nation's controversial action to ban social networking access for young people below 16 is sending ripples around the globe. Lawmakers, campaigners, and parents are watching intently to see if this strategy will inspire imitation for other nations.

Across Europe Movement

Throughout Europe, a rising number of states are exploring parallel restrictions.

• Denmark plans a prohibition on social media for under-15s, with the PM arguing that mobile devices and platforms are "taking away our youngsters' youth". The policy may be passed in the coming year.
• Norway is preparing to implement a age restriction of 15, citing the need to safeguard children from the "power of the AI".
• Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to authenticate the identity and age of social media participants. Officials have suggested that an Australia-style ban could be "one of the measures in reserve".
• In Spain, the president has called on parliament to approve a law increasing the access age for joining social media to 16.
• In France, the head of state has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a parliamentary commission has recommended a related move, potentially involving an overnight "digital curfew" for 15- to 18-year-olds.
• The government in the Netherlands has recommended parents to restrict their children from social media before 15.

Across the European Union, the bloc's legislature has passed a symbolic resolution supporting a ban for teenagers under 16 unless a parent decides otherwise is granted. Although it cautions of the "habit-forming" design of these services, the move does not establish enforceable legislation.

"A clear age limit is a useful foundation," said one MEP supporting the measure.

The United Kingdom: An Evidence-Based Stance

Across Britain, the leadership has kept open a potential ban, emphasizing that "no option is being dismissed" but insisting any action must be "based on robust evidence".

Earlier, support grew behind a bill to introduce restrictions on social media use by under-16s, but it was ultimately weakened. Instead, the administration pledged to investigate the topic.

Advocacy groups have voiced apprehensions. A prominent charity set up by the loved ones of a teenager who was lost after being exposed to dangerous platform posts argues that a blanket age ban might not protect children and could create a "cliff edge" of harm when teens turn 16.

"This ban is a answer to the failure of the social media companies to design tools that are safe and fit for minors," said a leading online safety campaigner.

America: A Fragmented Approach

Across America, legislation is mostly occurring at the regional level against a backdrop of federal gridlock.

• Utah mandates parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and restricts late-night use.
• The state of Florida has passed a measure barring children under fourteen from joining social media, though it is entangled in court battles.
• Virginia has enacted a rule restricting teenagers to a single hour of social media use per day, with additional use dependent on parental permission.
• The state of Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have likewise enacted bills demanding parental consent for under-16s to set up social media accounts.

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

Global Perspectives

Apart from the West, additional countries are similarly considering moves.

• Malaysia intends to prohibit social media for those under sixteen beginning next year.
• Brazil has raised the access age for Instagram to 16.

But, global organizations strike a more cautious tone. A major UN agency has advised that age-based restrictions carry risks and "may even prove counterproductive". The body points out that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for isolated children and that government action should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to improve user protection.

As this worldwide discussion unfolds, the steps of this nation and others show that policymakers globally are no longer content to stand by for tech companies to make changes on their own.