Law & Society: Social media ban for kids? The name is wrong and the bill is flawed
The Social Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill has been touted as a way of preventing people aged under 16 from accessing social media platforms, according to publicity and indeed its proponents in the National Party.
Under this bill, social media platforms will be required to take reasonable steps to put in place an age-verification system. If a proposed user cannot verify their age as over 16, they can't open an account.
But a careful reading says otherwise of the proposed bill, which is currently a private member's bill and will not be considered unless it is drawn from the 'biscuit tin', a form of legislative lottery.
The critical definition within the bill is that of an 'age-restricted social media platform'. A social media platform has a specific definition which does not include all applications available on the internet. WhatsApp, for example, would be unlikely to fulfil the definition, although the bill does allow for such platforms to be designated in the regulations as social media platforms.
The fact that the bill states access will be restricted only to platforms that are designated by the minister immediately narrows the focus.
It means the bill does not take people under the age of 16 off line in the sense that they will be unable to access any social media platforms.
There is no language in the bill that suggests that all social media platforms must have an age verification system, or language that states that any person under the age of 16 is prohibited from accessing a social media platform.
Should the bill become law, the battleground will be in persuading or dissuading the minister from designating a social media platform as age-restricted.
Clearly, the media reports about the proposed policy have been erroneous and lacking in nuance. The responsibility for this lies primarily in the hands of media who have headlined the proposal as a 'social media ban'.
It would have been helpful had it been made clear that the bill would not automatically apply to all social media platforms but only to those which fulfilled the requirements set out.
The bill that I have seen is flawed in a number of respects and there are what could be called unintended consequences. This is an example.
When the minister designates a social media platform as an age-restricted one, that platform must introduce an age-verification system. Anyone – not just an under-16-year-old – who wants to set up an account must go through the age-verification process.
That means adults who could legitimately access the platform would also have to provide evidence of age, leading to personal data that would not otherwise have been collected being stored. There are significant data gathering and privacy implications in this.
That tech-savvy under-16-year-olds will work out the various ways available to circumvent age restrictions is more than likely. One reason for doing so will be the challenge that is presented, and another will be 'because they can'. Yet another will be that they want to stay in touch. After all, the internet is a communications system. Social media platforms enable and enhance that communication. And this proposal will neither prevent nor prohibit the use of all social media platforms by under-16s.
It is fortunate that the government has decided to fully investigate the issue of under-16 access to social media under the watchful eye of Education Minister Erica Stanford. The bill will remain in the biscuit tin but future proposals may be better crafted.
David Harvey is a retired district court judge.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
23 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
AI boom in Australia: Amazon investment sparks debate on artificial intelligence and housing shortage
But what do we actually get for the money? Just data centres. If I was making a list of things Australia should be doing with concrete and air-conditioning, it would not include making data centres. What we need desperately, what we are horribly short of, is homes. House prices are zooming up, and not just from speculation. We've had huge inflation in the cost of building. Building a house from scratch costs around A$500,000, depending on its size and location. Maybe as much as a million bucks. And the inflation data tell us that price is up 39% compared with 2020. Even renovation costs a bomb. Chucking a renovation on a small old home is now an A$500,000+ activity. Jeff Bezos' Amazon wants to build data centres in Australia. Photo / Getty Images Why is building houses expensive? For a lot of reasons. One is the tradie shortage. Prices for getting the plumbing and wiring and framework of a house all put in are up sharply. Concrete slabs cost a fortune now. Australia needs new homes. Photo / Getty Images When it comes to these data centres, Amazon is supplying the capital, the money, which is nice. But money is not something Australia is super short of. We have trillions in the national superannuation fund that's just plonked in the sharemarket. (In fact, we have more super funds than the whole sharemarket is worth, so we now have to invest in other countries' sharemarkets too.) What we are short of is skilled people. Unemployment is at a historically low 4.3% right now. Unemployment among trades workers (people whose last job was in the trades) is about as low as it has ever been. You build a data centre – it doesn't cause the plumber tree to magically make more plumbers. The result is some fella driving his Ford Ranger to the data centre site instead of a site where they are making a new suburb. He spends the day plumbing server air-conditioning systems instead of dunnies. We get fewer workers in the home-building industry and fewer new homes. Large language models In a perfect world, we would be trying to allocate all our spare workers to making homes – and reallocate the workers who aren't spare to that task too. But instead we will be allocating them to meet the needs of large language models. Artificial intelligence (AI) has lots of different tricks but the most popular ones are language models, where you ask it a question and it tells you an answer, like GPT-5, the newest update that came out this week. Large language models are trained on published materials (including my articles on the internet, which I think is quite cool, and my book, which they pirated and I'm cross about). So far, large language models are kind of stupid, giving lots of wrong answers to easy questions, making things up, etc. But anyone making definitive judgments that AI is therefore pointless is engaging in wishful thinking. The pace of change is breakneck. Just because AIs hallucinated and couldn't draw fingers six months ago does not mean they still suck now. The future is yet to be seen. AI could turn out to be useful. (In fact, Waymo uses AI to drive its driverless cars and the early data show they crash way less than people.) But AI is a gamble and the payoff for the gamble will go to Amazon. Whereas making some more homes is a pretty sure bet that would actually help Australians, especially the increasingly large cohort who do not own a home. Less than 50% of 30-34 year olds owned a home at the last Census, down from 68% 40 years earlier. The AI bulge The following chart shows capital expenditure by the IT industry in Australia. It gives us a little glimpse of the foothills of this AI investment boom, which is set to grow even more. Private new capital expenditure and expected expenditure in March 2025. We are already spending three times as much as a few years ago. Not to mention more than in the year-2000 dotcom bubble. This is the other big concern about AI; if the huge investment doesn't pay off, there could be a big market crash. As in 2000, firms will have spent a lot of money on an idea that will pay off eventually. But it won't pay off soon enough to prevent a crisis of confidence, a market downturn, a crash in capital expenditure and an economic slowdown. This is another risk we invite on our shores when we welcome Amazon's capital expenditure. There are a lot of people worrying that AI will bring about a terrifying technological singularity, where it uses its own intelligence to make itself ever smarter and then destroys us. I think there's not nearly enough people worrying that AI will just grind us down by distracting us from building the things that will actually make us happier.
NZ Herald
8 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Shane Te Pou: 6 ways Christopher Luxon can save his Prime Ministership
Luxon spent enough time in corporate management to know that a CEO delivering numbers like that is in danger of getting the chop. He also likes to boast of his credentials in doing 'turnaround jobs'. Well, he needs one now. So, how can Luxon get his Prime Ministership 'back on track'? It's the economy, stupid New Zealand's economy isn't just bad – it's one of the worst in the developed world. We had a deep recession last year; other countries did not. And we're looking at round two. Partly, that's due to the Government suddenly cancelling, delaying or scaling back a bunch of infrastructure work, which contributed to the large loss of construction jobs. Partially, it's soaring energy prices killing our manufacturing sector. You can launch all the policies with energetic names like Investment Boost and Going for Growth you like; it doesn't matter if none of them move the needle. You spend your time trying to blame Labour for spending during a pandemic, while borrowing even more yourself for tax cuts; it doesn't create a single job. You can't spin away a crisis. It's time to take this seriously. Increase government investment and fix the energy shortage. Talk to us like adults You can practically hear the groans across the suburbs each Monday morning as Luxon whines 'well, what I would just say to you is' before repeating the same old talking points on his weekly media round. You're not trying to sell us soap, Mr Luxon. Show us you have a brain and treat us like we have brains, too. Give us genuine, considered thoughts and answers on the issues facing New Zealand. Is Christopher Luxon looking likely to be the first National Prime Minister to last only one term? Photo / Mark Mitchell Have a heart Before the National Party conference, party president Sylvia Wood said the problem is voters aren't seeing Luxon's 'humanity'. I agree. It's hard to see the humanity when he labels poor New Zealanders as 'bottom-feeders', scraps the pay equity process for 180,000 low-income workers and restricts access to emergency housing. If he is a humane guy, it's time to show it. As a Christian, Luxon must know Matthew 7:16: 'By their deeds you will know them.' Spend more time at home When Luxon said he was going to be a Prime Minister who didn't spend a lot of time inside the Wellington beltway, I don't think many of us realised just how far away he planned to be. I'm a man who likes to travel, but Luxon is taking it too far. At least one overseas trip a month, often on some pretty thin premises (what was he doing in Papua New Guinea the other week?) and with very little to show for it in diplomatic outcomes. Spend less time in the Koru Club and more time at the desk. Don't be afraid to change direction No one could accuse Luxon and his ministers of lacking self-confidence. They've ripped up ferry contracts, water reforms, light rail plans, the state house building programme, the RMA Act, the NCEA and more – all with the blithe assumption that they'll come up with something better. It's not exactly working out great, eh? Maybe it's time to revisit some of those impulsive decisions. Maybe it wasn't a great idea to borrow $14 billion for tax cuts and increase the Government's debt. Maybe, it's time to have the humility to adopt some of the Opposition's ideas, rather than reflexively scoffing at them. Pull the minor parties into line Luxon failed from the start to exert any authority over Act and New Zealand First's ministers. Casey Costello's dealings with tobacco companies should've seen her sacked. Karen Chhour's bootcamps disgrace would normally see the portfolio taken off her. Luxon's done nothing. Yeah, Winston Peters and David Seymour can threaten to pull down the Government if Luxon disciplines their ministers. But would they? It would cost them more than him. Have some guts – look them in the eye and see who blinks first. All is not lost for Luxon. But he's looking more and more likely to be the first National PM to last only one term, or less, unless he changes his ways.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
What each side wants from Alaska summit, including those on the sidelines
High stakes: Trump and Putin's summit amid Ukraine tensions. Photo / Getty Images In a draft peace plan published in June, Russia called on Ukraine to withdraw its forces from the Kherson, Lugansk, Zaporizhzhia and Donetsk regions that Moscow claimed to annex in 2022. Ukraine has rejected the idea. Russia has also called on Ukraine to halt its military mobilisation, abandon its Nato ambitions, and for Western countries to immediately stop weapon supplies – something critics say amounts to capitulation. In addition to territory, Russia wants Ukraine to ensure the 'rights and freedoms' of the Russian-speaking population and to prohibit what it calls the 'glorification of Nazism'. It also wants Western sanctions lifted. Ukraine says Russia's allegations of Nazism are absurd and that it already guarantees rights to Russian speakers. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not scheduled to take part in the summit, but has said there can be no peace deal without the country's involvement. He has called the meeting a 'personal victory' for Putin. Ukraine has called for an unconditional ceasefire on land, sea and sky as a prerequisite to peace talks. It wants both sides to release all prisoners of war and demanded the return of Ukrainian children it says Russia illegally kidnapped. Ukraine says Russia has forcibly transferred thousands of Ukrainian children into areas under its control since the war began, often adopting them into Russian families and assigning them Russian citizenship. Russia rejects the kidnapping allegations but acknowledges that thousands of children are on its territory. Ukraine says any deal must include security guarantees to prevent Russia from attacking again, and that there should be no restrictions on the number of troops it can deploy on its territory. It says sanctions on Russia can only be lifted gradually and that there should be a way of reimposing them if needed. United States President Trump promised he would end the war within '24 hours' after taking office in January. But eight months on, and even after repeated calls with Putin and several visits to Russia by US envoy Steve Witkoff, he has failed to extract any major concessions from the Kremlin. The summit is his first opportunity to broker a deal in person. The US President, author of the book Trump: The Art of the Deal said that Russia would face 'very severe consequences' if it did not halt its offensive. Trump hopes to broker a deal, but expectations for a breakthrough are low. Photo / Mandel Ngan, AFP The US leader initially said there would be some 'land swapping going on' at the talks, but appeared to walk back after speaking with European leaders. Trump has said he would 'like to see a ceasefire very, very quickly'. But the White House has played down expectations of a breakthrough, describing it as a 'listening exercise' for the former reality TV star. 'If the first one goes okay, we'll have a quick second one,' Trump said, hinting Zelenskyy could take part in a subsequent summit. Despite providing military support for Ukraine and hosting millions of Ukrainian refugees, Europe's leaders have been sidelined from the peace talks that may affect the region's security architecture in the future. European representatives were neither invited to the past three meetings between Russian and Ukrainian officials in Istanbul, nor to the Russia-US talks in Riyadh in February. In a statement last week, the leaders of Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Finland and the EU Commission warned there could be no meaningful peace without Ukraine's participation. 'Territorial questions concerning Ukraine can be, and will be, negotiated only by the Ukrainian president,' French President Emmanuel Macron said after speaking with Trump yesterday. Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have signalled they are willing to deploy peacekeepers in Ukraine once the fighting ends, an idea Russia has vehemently rejected. -Agence France-Presse
