🔗 Share this article Might Other States Emulate Australia's Example in Prohibiting Social Platforms for Under-16s? The nation's bold move to restrict social networking access for young people below 16 is sending ripples internationally. Politicians, campaigners, and families are monitoring with great interest to see if this strategy will inspire imitation for other nations. The European Trend Across Europe, a rising number of nations are exploring similar bans. Denmark plans a ban on social media for under-15s, with the PM stating that phones and networks are "stealing our children's childhood". The policy may be enacted soon. Norway is preparing to introduce a access barrier of 15, pointing to the need to shield children from the "influence of the recommendation systems". The Irish government is introducing a digital wallet to confirm the age and identity of social media participants. Authorities have indicated that an Australia-style ban is "a potential tools in reserve". In Spain, the prime minister has urged lawmakers to enact a law lifting the legal age for using social media to 16. In France, the head of state has proposed a ban for children below 15, and a government panel has endorsed a similar action, potentially involving an overnight "screen time restriction" for adolescents. The government in The Netherlands has urged parents to prevent their kids from social media up to the age of 15. Across the European Union, the EU parliament has passed a symbolic motion demanding a ban for under-16s except if guardian approval is given. Although it highlights of the "addictive" design of these platforms, the resolution does not enact mandatory rules. "An effective age limit is a solid starting point," stated a leading MEP driving the measure. The United Kingdom: A Cautious Eye Across Britain, the administration has not ruled out a potential ban, stating that "nothing is discarded" but maintaining any action must be "grounded in robust data". Previously, support gathered behind a bill to impose limits on social media use by under-16s, but it was in the end watered down. However, the government vowed to investigate the topic. Advocacy groups have raised apprehensions. One foundation established by the relatives of a young person who died after being exposed to disturbing platform posts argues that a blanket age ban might not make platforms safer and could lead to a "cliff edge" of risk when young people become eligible. "The Australian ban is a answer to the refusal of the social media companies to create products and services that are safe and suitable for young users," commented a leading peer. America: A State-by-State Picture In the United States, legislation is largely unfolding at the local level due to federal stalemate. Utah demands guardian permission for those under 18 to use social media and limits nighttime use. Florida has enacted a law barring under-14s from joining social media, though it is subject to constitutional disputes. The state of Virginia has enacted a law limiting minors to 60 minutes of social media access per day, with extra use needing a guardian's okay. Georgia, The state of Tennessee, and The state of Louisiana have also enacted laws demanding guardian approval for under-16s to open social media profiles. Despite bipartisan support and suggestions from certain individuals to follow this example, a US-wide ban is right now seen as unlikely. International Views Apart from the West, additional states are also considering moves. Malaysia plans to ban social media for teenagers effective next year. Brazil has lifted the required age for Instagram to 16. Yet, world bodies strike a more cautious position. A major UN agency has warned that blanket prohibitions have downsides and "might backfire". The body highlights that online platforms can be a "vital connection" for vulnerable children and that bans should not be a "replacement" for platform operators to improve safety. Even as this worldwide conversation evolves, the actions of the Australian government and several other countries indicate that policymakers globally are no longer willing to stand by for tech companies to act voluntarily.