By bizn_fun 
Australia’s unprecedented social media ban for under-16s looks like it could be a catalyst for other nations – including the UK – to follow suit.
The House of Lords backed a similar ban on 21 January, meaning it will soon be debated in parliament.
French lawmakers have passed a similar bill to ban social media use for under 15s, which is going to France’s upper house, while Spain’s prime minister Pedro Sanchez has pledged to introduce an under-16 ban too.
Speaking on 3 February, Mr Sanchez claimed Spain had joined five other European countries that he labelled the “Coalition of the Digitally Willing” who would coordinate and enforce cross-border regulation of the social media crackdown, but he didn’t specify which nations were involved.
Greece is also close to introducing a ban of its own for children under 15, a government source has told Reuters.
So how does Australia’s trailblazing ban work, and what has the reaction to it been?
What are the new laws in Australia?
The new laws in Australia, which came into effect in December, have forced the 10 biggest social media platforms to bring in the ban or face fines of up to AU$49.5m (£25m).
The companies were required to find ways to close existing accounts for under-16s and prevent new ones from being created.
The law is designed to protect children from potential mental health risks, inappropriate content and cyber bullying.
Which platforms are affected by the ban in Australia?
The age-restricted platforms include:
• Facebook
• Instagram
• Snapchat
• Threads
• TikTok
• Twitch
• X
• YouTube
• Kick
More generally, age restrictions apply to social media platforms that meet three specific conditions, unless the Australian government determines they should be excluded.
The conditions are:
• The sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between two or more users
• The service allows users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users
• The service allows users to post material on the service
Platforms are responsible for determining whether they fit the criteria and doing their own legal assessments.
Which apps are not age-restricted?
Australia’s eSafety Commission has said the following platforms will not be age-restricted:
• Discord
• GitHub
• Google Classroom
• LEGO play
• Facebook Messenger
• Pinterest
• Roblox
• Steam and Steam Chat
• WhatsApp
• YouTube Kids
But the Australian government has indicated the list could change as new products are launched, and young users switch to alternatives.
How do social media companies comply with ban?
Australia’s Online Safety Amendment Act 2024 requires companies to take “reasonable steps” to prevent underage users from signing up and using their platform; they could face fines of up to $49.5m (£25m) for failing to comply.
To verify age, platforms can either request copies of identification documents, use a third party to apply age estimation technology to an account holder’s face, or make inferences from data already available such has how long an account has been held.
But the Australian government has said requesting ID cannot be the only method to determine someone’s age.
The Australian government said that as of late January, social media companies had revoked access to roughly 4.7 million accounts identified as belonging to children in the country.
Australia’s eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant said the figure was encouraging, and added that all 10 companies had been compliant with the ban so far.
She added that the companies were expected to shift their efforts from enforcing the ban to preventing children from creating new accounts or otherwise finding a way around the ban.
Opposition lawmakers have suggested young people are easily finding ways around the ban, or are migrating to other apps that are less scrutinised than the largest platforms.
Ms Grant said that while data showed a spike in downloads of alternative apps when the ban was enacted, there had not been a spike in usage.
Read more:
Kids’ social media ban in the UK now feels almost certain
Has it proved controversial?
Prior to the passing of the ban in Australia’s parliament last year, more than 140 national and international academics with expertise in fields related to technology and child welfare signed an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese opposing a social media age limit as “too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively”.
In Sydney, two 15-year-olds have sued the Australian government over the ban.
One of the claimants, Noah Jones, who turns 16 in August, has argued the ban will deny 2.6 million young Australians of a right to freedom of political communication implied in Australia’s constitution.
Where are we at with a UK ban?
A social media ban for under-16s could be introduced in the UK after the House of Lords backed the move.
Peers passed an amendment to the government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill – a wide-ranging set of law proposals currently making its way through parliament.
The amendment says that within 12 months of the act passing, social media sites must be required to use “highly effective” age checks to make sure no under-16s can become users.
The ban in Australia has been a driving force in the UK debate, coming up continually in the Lords discussions.
Sir Keir, who was initially opposed to a blanket ban, had just announced a three-month consultation on the matter, through which UK ministers would visit Australia to see what kind of impact the ban was having.
The government will have the chance to overturn the amendment in the Commons, but experts say it could prove challenging, as many Labour MPs have backed the ban.
What have people said about a possible UK ban?
There has largely been cross-party support for a ban in the UK.
The amendment was proposed by Conservative former education minister Lord Nash, and sponsored by former Labour MP Baroness Berger, Lib Dem peer Baroness Benjamin, and crossbencher Baroness Cass.
It came after Tory leader Kemi Badenoch had said the Conservative Party would introduce a ban for under-16s if it was in power.
Speaking to Sky News’ lead politics presenter Sophy Ridge, Ms Badenoch said she was “delighted” with the Lords vote, adding: “There is a national consensus, in my view, across political parties, except Labour right now, that we do need to limit young people’s access to social media.”
Sir Keir has regularly spoken about the importance of social media safety for young people.
Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna was murdered at the age of 16 by two other teenagers in 2023, was among the signatories of a letter urging party leaders Sir Keir Starmer, Kemi Badenoch and Sir Ed Davey to support the ban.
Ms Ghey previously said her daughter had had a “social media addiction” and “desperately wanted to be TikTok famous”, putting her “in constant fear about who Brianna might be speaking to online”.
The letter, also backed by celebrities like actors Hugh Grant and Sophie Winkleman, stated: “Children are being served up extreme content without seeking it out. Parents know this has to stop. But they cannot do this alone, and they are asking for politicians to help.”
But another joint statement by dozens of children’s and online safety organisations, experts and bereaved families has urged politicians not to introduce the ban, saying they believe it would be “the wrong solution”.
“Though well-intentioned, blanket bans on social media would fail to deliver the improvement in children’s safety and wellbeing that they so urgently need,” the letter read. “They are a blunt response that fails to address the successive shortcomings of tech companies and governments to act decisively and sooner.”
It suggested children would be better served if the government instead focuses its efforts on better enforcing existing laws, particularly under the Online Safety Act.