No comment on the implementation, but I wonder if there's some value in just allowing parents to be able to point to this and say "No, little Fred, you're not allowed to have an Instagram account until you're 16. It's the actual rule."
Of course many will say this can be abused, but all technology can be abused and the reason we're in this mess in the first place is because OS designers haven't figured out that the relationship between parent and child is an important one which should be strengthened, not made weaker ..
What? Why would parents need permission from their government to forbid their kid from having an Instagram account? They're parents, so they can engage in parenting.
Right now if a parent says "You can't have instagram. Because I say so." the kids answer will be "But I will be a looser noob if I can't. All my friend are on it. Jenny has 5k followers!"
Vs after the ban: "You can't have instagram. This is the law." "But mom! Some of my friends are on it. Jenny has 1k followers!" "Is that so? I will ask Jenny's mom if she knows about that."
It is not going to stop absolutely everything. (Same as prohibiting underage alcohol drinking is not stopping teens from drinking any). But it will put a serious damper on it and fracture the social networks into smaller more underground ones.
They probably want to allow their kids to use a computer, so it would be very easy for the kid to go to instagram when they dont look.
Why would any pre-teen / teen care about what government thinks? They care what their friends think about that TikTok they saw during recess, though.