🔗 Share this article Could Different Nations Emulate Australia's in Banning Online Networks for Teenagers Under 16? Australia's controversial policy to restrict social media access for young people below 16 is sparking debate worldwide. Lawmakers, child protection groups, and parents are observing with great interest to see if this strategy will set a precedent for countries abroad. European Trend Across Europe, a increasing chorus of states are exploring comparable measures. Denmark plans a restriction on social media for children under fifteen, with the PM declaring that mobile devices and apps are "stealing our children's childhood". The policy could be enacted in the coming year. Norway is set to enforce a minimum age limit of 15, citing the need to safeguard children from the "manipulative force of the algorithms". Ireland is developing a online verification tool to verify the age and identity of social media users. Authorities have suggested that an Australian-model ban remains "a potential measures under consideration". In The Spanish government, the prime minister has asked parliament to enact a bill lifting the minimum age for accessing social media to 16. In France, the head of state has floated the idea of a ban for under-15s, and a legislative committee has recommended a related step, alongside an overnight "internet blackout" for older teenagers. The administration in The Netherlands has urged families to restrict their kids from social media until 15. At the EU level, the European parliament has passed a advisory statement supporting a ban for under-16s without parental consent is granted. Although it cautions of the "addictive" design of these platforms, the resolution does not enact binding law. "A strong age barrier is a good starting point," stated one parliamentarian driving the initiative. Britain: A Watchful Stance For the United Kingdom, the government has not ruled out a potential ban, arguing that "nothing is discarded" but insisting any policy must be "grounded in strong data". Last year, support built behind a bill to enact limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was eventually watered down. Instead, the government pledged to investigate the issue. Campaign organizations have expressed warnings. An organization established by the relatives of a young person who died after viewing harmful online content contends that a strict age ban could fail to protect children and could lead to a "dangerous transition" of exposure when young people reach the legal age. "Australia's ban is a response to the refusal of the Silicon Valley to create tools that are secure and fit for children," said a prominent online safety campaigner. The United States: A Fragmented Approach In the United States, legislation is primarily happening at the local level amid national inaction. Utah demands adult approval for under-18s to use social media and restricts nighttime use. Florida has signed a bill barring those below 14 from creating accounts on social media, though it is entangled in court battles. Virginia has enacted a rule capping teenagers to 60 minutes of social media use per day, with extra time dependent on adult consent. Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have also passed measures requiring guardian approval for under-16s to open social media presences. Despite widespread concern and proposals from certain individuals to follow this path, a US-wide ban is currently seen as improbable. International Outlook Beyond the West, other states are likewise exploring options. Malaysia plans to prohibit social media for teenagers effective next year. Brazil has raised the access age for one major platform to 16. Yet, world bodies adopt a more measured position. A major UN agency has cautioned that social media bans pose dangers and "might have unintended consequences". The agency highlights that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for marginalized children and that bans should not be a "excuse" for social media firms to invest in child safeguards. As this global debate unfolds, the actions of the Australian government and its followers indicate that states internationally are no longer prepared to delay for the industry to self-regulate.