Many countries want to stop children from using social media. The United States has a different plan.

許多國家希望阻止兒童使用社交媒體，而美國則有不同的計劃。

Australia, the UK, and Turkey want to ban social media for children under 16. Australia may make companies pay a lot of money if they do not follow the rules. Canada and France are thinking about these rules too.

澳洲、英國和土耳其希望禁止 16 歲以下兒童使用社交媒體。如果公司不遵守規定，澳洲可能會要求他們支付巨額款項。加拿大和法國也在考慮這些規定。

In the US, the laws are different. The government cannot easily ban social media. Instead, people go to court. They say that apps are designed to make children stay online for too long. This is bad for children.

在美國，法律有所不同。政府無法輕易禁止社交媒體。相反，人們會採取法律行動。他們聲稱應用程式的設計旨在讓兒童在網上停留過久，這對兒童有害。

Big tech companies spend millions of dollars to stop these laws. They want to make money. They add some safety tools, but some people say these tools do not work. Now, more people in the US want companies to be responsible for harm.

大型科技公司花費數百萬美元來阻止這些法律，因為他們想要獲利。雖然他們增加了一些安全工具，但有些人認為這些工具並沒有效果。現在，美國有更多人希望公司為造成的傷害負責。

Most countries want to ban children from social media. The US is still fighting about the laws in court.

大多數國家希望禁止兒童使用社交媒體，而美國仍在法庭上就相關法律進行爭論。

Many countries are now introducing strict rules to reduce the risks that social media poses to children. In contrast, the United States is focusing more on legal battles and specific new laws.

許多國家目前正引入嚴格的規範，以降低社交媒體對兒童造成的風險。相比之下，美國則更專注於法律爭端及特定的新法規。

Currently, there is a global trend toward setting strict age limits. Countries such as Australia, the UK, Indonesia, and Turkey have either passed or proposed bans on social media for children under 16. For example, the Australian government wants to increase fines for companies that do not follow these rules to A$99 million. Furthermore, nations like Canada, France, and Norway are considering similar laws because public opinion now favors government control over the tech industry's own rules.

目前，全球趨勢傾向於設定嚴格的年齡限制。澳洲、英國、印尼和土耳其等國已通過或提議禁止 16 歲以下兒童使用社交媒體。例如，澳洲政府希望將未遵守規範的公司罰金提高至 9,900 萬澳幣。此外，加拿大、法國和挪威也正在考慮類似的法律，因為目前的公眾輿論更傾向於由政府管控，而非由科技產業自行制定規則。

On the other hand, the United States has a different approach because of free speech protections and strong pressure from tech companies. Although some federal laws have been suggested, critics argue they are not strong enough. Consequently, supporters of child safety have turned to the courts. Recent court cases against Meta and Google have set a precedent by focusing on 'addictive' design choices rather than the content itself, which allows them to hold companies accountable despite existing legal protections.

另一方面，美國由於言論自由的保護以及科技公司的強大壓力，採取了不同的做法。儘管有人建議制定聯邦法律，但批評者認為力度不足。因此，兒童安全的擁護者轉而求助於法院。近期針對 Meta 和 Google 的法院訴訟開創了先例，將重點放在「成癮性」的設計選擇而非內容本身，這使得他們能夠在現有法律保護下追究公司的責任。

There is a clear conflict between the profits of tech companies and the safety of children. Large tech firms spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the EU and US to stop strict regulations. While these platforms have added some safety tools, such as content filters, whistleblowers claim that the companies still prioritize user engagement over safety. This tension has led to the creation of Social Media Victims Remembrance Day in the US to demand more accountability.

科技公司的利潤與兒童的安全之間存在明顯衝突。大型科技公司在歐盟和美國投入數億美元以阻止嚴格監管。雖然這些平台增加了一些安全工具（如內容篩選），但舉報者聲稱，公司仍將用戶參與度置於安全之上。這種緊張局勢導致美國設立了「社交媒體受害者紀念日」，以要求更高的問責制。

While most of the world is moving toward total age bans, the US continues to struggle with legal challenges and slow legislative progress.

雖然世界上大部分地區正趨向全面實施年齡限制，但美國仍持續在法律挑戰與緩慢的立法進展中掙扎。

International jurisdictions are increasingly implementing restrictive measures to mitigate the perceived risks social media poses to children, while the United States pursues a strategy centered on litigation and targeted legislation.

國際司法管轄區正日益採取限制措施，以減輕社交媒體對兒童造成的可感知風險，而美國則採取以訴訟和針對性立法為中心的策略。

The current global landscape is characterized by a shift toward categorical age restrictions. Australia, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and Turkey have enacted or proposed bans on social media access for individuals under 16. In Australia, the government has sought to intensify enforcement by proposing an increase in maximum penalties for non-compliance to A$99 million and expanding the evidentiary requirements for platforms to prove age-restriction efficacy. Other nations, including Canada, France, and Norway, are exploring similar restrictive frameworks, reflecting a perceived tipping point where public sentiment outweighs the industry's preference for self-regulation.

目前的全球局勢其特徵是向類別化年齡限制轉移。澳洲、英國、印尼和土耳其已制定或提議禁止 16 歲以下個體訪問社交媒體。在澳洲，政府試圖通過提議將不合規的最高罰款增加至 9,900 萬澳幣，並擴大平台證明年齡限制有效性的證據要求，以加強執法。其他國家，包括加拿大、法國和挪威，也正在探索類似的限制框架，反映出公眾情緒已達到一個臨界點，其影響力超過了業界對自我監管的偏好。

Conversely, the United States maintains a distinct approach due to First Amendment protections and significant industry lobbying. While federal legislation, such as the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act, has been introduced, critics argue that the omission of a 'duty of care' provision renders such measures insufficient. Consequently, advocates have pivoted toward the judiciary. Recent jury verdicts against Meta and Google have established a precedent for holding platforms accountable by focusing on deliberate design choices—such as addictive algorithms—rather than the content itself, thereby circumventing the protections afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

相反地，由於第一修正案的保護和強大的業界遊說，美國維持著截然不同的做法。雖然已引入聯邦立法（如《兒童網路與數位安全法》），但批評者認為，由於缺乏「謹慎責任」條款，使得此類措施不足。因此，倡議者轉向司法途徑。近期針對 Meta 和 Google 的陪審團裁決建立了一個先例，透過將焦點集中在刻意的設計選擇（如成癮性演算法）而非內容本身，來追究平台的責任，從而繞過《通訊文明法》第 230 條所提供的保護。

Stakeholder positioning reveals a profound tension between institutional profit motives and child safety. Tech conglomerates have invested heavily in lobbying—spending approximately €150 million in the EU and $260 million in the US between 2020 and 2024—to oppose stringent regulations. While platforms have introduced incremental safety features, such as 'PG-13' content filters and supervised accounts, critics and whistleblowers, including former Meta employee Arturo Béjar, contend that the fundamental incentive to maximize user engagement remains unchanged. This systemic friction has led to the establishment of Social Media Victims Remembrance Day in the US, symbolizing a growing movement to institutionalize accountability for online harms.

利益相關者的定位揭示了機構利潤動機與兒童安全之間的深刻緊張關係。科技龍頭投入巨資進行遊說——在 2020 年至 2024 年間，在歐盟支出約 1.5 億歐元，在美國支出 2.6 億美元——以反對嚴格監管。儘管平台引入了漸進的安全功能，如「PG-13」內容篩選和監督帳戶，但批評者和吹哨者（包括前 Meta 員工 Arturo Béjar）主張，最大化用戶參與度的根本誘因依然未變。這種系統性摩擦導致美國設立了「社交媒體受害者紀念日」，象徵著一場將線上傷害問責制度化的運動日益壯大。

While global trends lean toward absolute age-based prohibitions, the US continues to navigate a complex intersection of legal challenges and legislative inertia.

雖然全球趨勢傾向於絕對的年齡禁令，但美國仍持續在法律挑戰與立法停滯不前的複雜交集點中摸索。