Childhood beyond algorithms Azerbaijan at the forefront of a global trend

When Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the world's first ban on social media for children under the age of sixteen in December, he likened the new measure to laws regulating alcohol sales. The fact that some teenagers still find ways to obtain alcohol, he argued, does not undermine the rationale for having a universal age threshold.

The package of amendments adopted by Azerbaijan's parliament in its third reading on June 30, introducing the registration of children on social media platforms, places Azerbaijan firmly within this same logic—at precisely the moment when what began as a local experiment is evolving into an emerging international standard.

Only a year ago, the idea of legally restricting children's access to social media platforms seemed radical. Today, in a world where such bans are either being debated or have already been introduced, it is easier to list the exceptions than the countries embracing the trend.

Australia was the first to enact such legislation, bringing it into force on December 10, 2025. Under the law, social media platforms face fines of up to A$50 million if they fail to prevent users under the age of 16 from creating accounts. According to official figures, around 4.7 million accounts identified as belonging to children were removed during the first weeks after the law came into effect.

Türkiye adopted a law in April banning access for users under the age of 15; Spain introduced a similar measure in February; France passed a draft bill through the lower house of parliament; Norway is preparing to submit its own proposal by the end of the year; while Denmark, Portugal, Greece, Italy and the Netherlands are advancing at their own pace.

Above this mosaic of national approaches, a broader European framework is taking shape. In April, the European Commission presented an age-verification application linked to the future EU digital wallet. Ursula von der Leyen summarised the essence of this shift in a single, straightforward and widely resonant phrase: children should be raised by parents, not algorithms.

The variation in age thresholds—15 in some countries, 16 in others, and 14 in certain German proposals—reflects not disagreement over principle, but an ongoing calibration of its practical application. The principle itself is already settled: a platform that profits from a child’s attention is no longer regarded as a neutral environment for which only families bear responsibility. Accountability is increasingly shifting towards those who monetise that attention.

It is precisely this framework—shifting the focus from restricting children to placing responsibility on companies—that is also reflected in Azerbaijan’s legislation. Children under the age of 16 are prohibited from creating personal accounts on social media platforms, the list of which will be determined by the relevant authority. Teenagers aged 16 to 18 will be allowed to register only with the consent of a legal guardian, while social media platforms themselves will be responsible for verifying users’ age. The law will enter into force 12 months after its publication, a period intended to allow for the development and refinement of the necessary technical mechanisms.

Baku is not inventing anything new. The adopted package consists of amendments to three legal acts: the Law on Information and Information Protection, the Code of Administrative Offences, and, notably, the 2018 Law on the Protection of Children from Harmful Information. A national framework for shielding children from harmful content has existed in the country for several years, and the new legislation merely extends it to the environment in which much of children’s lives now unfold.

A smartphone has become the first thing a child reaches for in the morning and the last thing put aside before sleep. It is there that friendships and conflicts unfold, first affections form, news is consumed, and an endless recommendation feed increasingly shapes not just leisure time, but character itself. The logic of the legislator is straightforward: if in the physical world the state has long defined what is accessible to a child and at what age, it is inconsistent to pretend that the digital space lies outside that same responsibility simply because it is newer.

Behind the technical aspects of the debate lies a far broader question, one that gives this wave of legislation its momentum. In Türkiye, for example, the political catalyst for the law was a tragedy—a school shooting in mid-April carried out by a 14-year-old student. Following the incident, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated in a televised address that digital applications corrupt the minds of children and that platforms themselves, to put it plainly, have turned into “cesspools.” The wording is stark, but it reflects a broader shift in how states now view technology giants.

For a long period, social media operated under a presumption of innocence: the platform bore no responsibility, and accountability rested solely with the user. That assumption has now collapsed. From Canberra to Madrid—where Pedro Sánchez has pledged to criminalise algorithmic manipulation and introduce personal liability for senior executives—governments are no longer accepting the idea of platform neutrality. Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre expressed it in more straightforward terms: the goal is to give children back their childhood, ensuring that play and friendship are not captured by algorithms and screens.

Against this backdrop, Azerbaijan’s law does not appear as a belated reaction or a symbolic gesture, but rather as a timely alignment with a broader global rhythm. The country is among the few that have already adopted legislation, rather than the much larger group still engaged in debate. Moreover, it has done so in a formulation where the protection of personal data is articulated more clearly than in a number of far more prominent initiatives.

A year from now, when the law comes into force and it becomes clear which platforms will be included in the designated list and how age verification will function in practice, the debate will shift from matters of principle to the effectiveness—or ineffectiveness—of implementation. But by that point, the underlying principle—that a child’s development should not be dictated by systems designed to capture their attention—will no longer be contested. In essence, it already is not.