By Liam DeBoer | BlendrNews.com

Within a few months, Canada, France, the UK, and 11 other nations all decided children under 16 should be banned from social media: 14 nations, 14 governments, 14 legal systems, yet one identical policy arriving at nearly the exact same time. Forget whether the ban is good. Maybe it is.

My question is deeper. Why does it look the same everywhere at once? We are told these governments belong to their peoples; Ottawa is supposed to answer to Canadians, Westminster, to Britons, Paris, to the French. Each is supposed to be steering its own ship, so why the uniformity?

Suppose every nation on its own decided youth and the screen had become a problem. You’d expect multiple strategies with different mechanisms, different thresholds, and different timelines. Because that’s what self-rule would look like.

But that’s not what happened. Australia passed a ban in December, and within months, France, Britain, and Canada reached for the exact same one. The same age line, same enforcement machinery, and same framing about protecting children. Denmark, Greece, Austria, and the rest fell in line behind.

It didn’t spread like independent nations stumbling towards a shared problem; instead, it got implemented like a memo through a head office. When a dozen supposedly sovereign nations converge on the identical policy in the identical window, the decision clearly wasn’t made in any of those countries. It must have been handed to them.

The people of the West are not being represented. It feels much more like being administered.

Originally published on Instagram @liam_out_loud