🔗 Share this article Will Other States Emulate Australia's Example in Prohibiting Online Networks for Teenagers Under 16? The Australian decisive policy to restrict social networking access for young people below 16 is creating waves around the globe. Politicians, campaigners, and parents are watching intently to see if this strategy will set a precedent for other nations. European Movement Across Europe, a growing number of countries are moving toward parallel measures. Denmark has stated a restriction on social media for under-15s, with the prime minister declaring that mobile devices and apps are "stealing our children's childhood". A law may be passed soon. Norway is set to introduce a age restriction of 15, pointing to the need to safeguard children from the "manipulative force of the AI". Ireland is introducing a digital wallet to verify the age and identity of social media participants. Officials have stated that an similar ban is "a potential options on the table". In Spain, the leader has called on lawmakers to enact a bill lifting the legal age for using social media to 16. In France, the head of state has proposed a ban for under-15s, and a government panel has suggested a similar move, alongside an overnight "screen time restriction" for 15- to 18-year-olds. The authorities in the Netherlands has advised parents to block their children from social media up to the age of 15. Across the European Union, the EU parliament has adopted a advisory motion demanding a ban for minors without a parent decides otherwise is given. While it warns of the "compulsive" design of these platforms, the resolution does not create binding law. "A clear age limit is a useful starting point," stated a leading European lawmaker driving the initiative. Britain: A Watchful Stance Across Britain, the leadership has not ruled out a future ban, stating that "nothing is being dismissed" but maintaining any policy must be "supported by conclusive research". Last year, momentum built behind a legislative effort to impose limits on social media use by teenagers, but it was eventually modified. Instead, the government committed to further research the matter. Charities have raised concerns. A prominent charity established by the relatives of a teenager who was lost after encountering dangerous platform posts contends that a simple age ban might not protect children and could result in a "cliff edge" of risk when young people reach the legal age. "Australia's ban is a reaction to the refusal of the social media companies to design platforms and apps that are secure and fit for young users," commented a leading peer. America: A State-by-State Approach Across America, regulation is mostly unfolding at the regional level due to federal gridlock. Utah demands parental consent for those under 18 to use social media and limits nighttime use. Florida has enacted a bill banning under-14s from joining social media, though it is entangled in constitutional disputes. Virginia has approved a regulation capping teenagers to one hour of social media use per day, with extra time needing adult consent. Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and Louisiana have similarly passed laws requiring adult authorization for under-16s to set up social media profiles. Even with bipartisan support and suggestions from certain politicians to mimic this example, a nationwide ban is presently seen as improbable. International Views Outside of Europe and the US, other states are similarly taking action. Malaysia plans to prohibit social media for those under sixteen starting from next year. Brazil has lifted the required age for Instagram to 16. Yet, global bodies adopt a more nuanced stance. Unicef has warned that social media bans pose dangers and "might have unintended consequences". The body points out that social networks can be a "critical link" for vulnerable children and that regulation should not be a "replacement" for social media firms to improve user protection. While this international conversation evolves, the policies of this nation and its followers demonstrate that governments internationally are increasingly content to wait for platforms to make changes on their own.