Safety, rights and practicalities
Social media has proved toxic for young people and destructive to mental health. It is an avenue for bullying and exclusion, as well as unrealistic expectations about body image. It is laced with disinformation, misogyny and extremism. Its profit-seeking algorithms, gamification and predatory tactics harm children.
Parents need the support of a ban as backup in their efforts to help protect the most vulnerable — children at a stage when their brains are maturing and they are especially susceptible to peer influence.
Australia's looming ban has received popular support, and the Social Media Age-Restricted Users Bill is likely to be welcomed by a majority here if it comes to the House. Similar moves are under way in parts of the United States and Europe.
The restrictions on mobile phones in New Zealand schools have largely been positive and accepted, despite various practical and other objections raised before the change was introduced.
National failed to secure Act New Zealand's support to progress the Bill as a government measure. It must take its chances in the ballot as a Member's Bill.
Labour, however, surprised by the support for and success of the school cellphone ban, is open to discussion. The political hurdles are not insurmountable.
The Bill is under the name of MP Catherine Wedd. She argued that, as a mother of four, she was "living and breathing the negative impacts of social media in our communities every day".
Parents needed the government to support them, she said. We ban underage harmful tobacco, vapes and firearms, so why not social media?
Some say the onus should be on the platforms. They should be regulated and held to account. Good luck with that.
Despite this lineup of strong reasons for the ban, practical and fundamental issues stand in the way of the Bill's good intent.
It should also be acknowledged that social media has benefits for young people.
It can create online communities for minorities, help the introverted and enable self-expression.
Act said the Bill was hastily drafted, simplistic and unworkable.
Indeed, the very definition of social media is causing headaches, notably as messaging apps spread their functions well beyond just messages and conversations. Popular games such as Roblox, Minecraft and Fortnite include social interaction. Google convinced the Australian government to exempt YouTube from the ban.
If specific apps like TikTok, Instagram or Facebook are prohibited, others will take their place. Adolescents could be driven to less regulated or more dangerous platforms.
Age verification is challenging and has yet to be fully clarified for Australia. Uploaded evidence could be faked. Smart teenagers could also easily set up virtual networks to pretend to be in another country. Such workarounds could rapidly spread.
What is the point of a law if it cannot be enforced? Would it be just a feel-good failure?
Everybody, it seems, would have to go through the age justification process, putting more data on the internet and giving more private information to the platforms. They are not to be trusted.
How, too, would governments establish that social media companies were failing to verify ages? How could small countries like New Zealand enforce potential fines and penalties?
There are issues about the government acting like a "nanny state", even potentially a police state.
Responsibility and decision-making would be taken from parents, who have their individual values and contexts.
A substantial intrusion on freedom of expression lies behind the issue. The ban specifically targets the ability and rights of under-16s to communicate, share ideas, and access information.
Social media is about far more than entertainment and communication. For better and for worse, it is where many people, regardless of age, engage with news and the world and participate.
It also sets a government precedent for restricting rights, the slippery slope. First, the under-16s, and what comes next?
Practical considerations alone could be sufficient to block any effective change. If not, there remains the constant tension between safety and rights.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
14 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Echo Chamber: Spineless, unacceptable, deeply offensive… C U next Tuesday?
Inside parliament, as MPs and speaker Gerry Brownlee battled over his decision to suspend Chlöe Swarbrick for calling government MPs spineless. Echo Chamber is The Spinoff's dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus. All eyes were on Chlöe Swarbrick from the moment she walked in the door. There was more security than usual in the public gallery; both police and parliamentary security stood on guard, as if they were expecting chaos from protesters. There were none to be seen – the gallery was mostly empty but for a school group. The Green Party co-leader had ruffled the speaker's tail feathers the previous day by urging 'government MPs with a spine' to back her bill sanctioning Israel. Brownlee, who has typically been a rather passive speaker who lets MPs get away with more than they should, took great offence to this comment and ejected her from the chamber, saying she couldn't come back until she apologised. As she returned to the house for Wednesday's question time, Brownlee began by inviting Swarbrick to withdraw and apologise for her statement. 'I won't be doing that, Mr Speaker,' Swarbrick replied. 'Then the member is to leave the house,' Brownlee said. But Swarbrick did no such thing. She crossed one knee over the other and cast a contumacious gaze at the speaker's chair. This made Brownlee big mad. 'Is the member refusing to leave the House? I therefore name Chlöe Swarbrick.' Naming is an innocuous-sounding ruling that is actually one of the most serious punishments an MP can get, a suspension from the House for 'grossly disorderly behaviour'. Labour leader Chris Hipkins immediately tried to interject, but Brownlee was on a mission. He called for an oral vote to name Swarbrick. The government benches rang out with 'aye' and the opposition, 'no'. 'The ayes have it,' Brownlee declared, even though the nos were clearly louder. The opposition protested, so Brownlee called for a party vote. The parties voted down government lines, meaning the ayes won 68-54. 'The member will leave the house,' Brownlee said triumphantly. At this, Swarbrick stood up and left her seat – but not without a quick 'free Palestine'. 'Yasss,' cheered Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. That was far from the end of the matter. The House then turned to a long debate about what had just happened. Chris Hipkins began with a characteristically pedantic complaint about the exact wording of the motion. 'I wonder whether you could indicate to us what the motion that the House just voted on actually was? Because if it was the one that you spoke, it doesn't have the effect that you think it does.' Brownlee had no patience for Hipkins' schtick. In an impressively petulant response, Brownlee hit back with 'in that case, I'll put it again'. The House repeated the same performance – again, the no vote was louder. Brownlee ruled with the ayes, but there was a protest, and another round of party votes yielded the same result as before. Hipkins then questioned whether the punishment was warranted. It's common for MPs to be kicked out of the house for the day for unparliamentary comments, but it's extremely rare for speakers to demand an apology the following day. The only recent example was in 2015, when then prime minister John Key accused opposition MPs of 'backing rapists', prompting a mass walkout. 'That was a very controversial matter, and it was at least a week later that the speaker asked him to withdraw and apologise in order to restore order in the House, which had been lost,' Hipkins said. Willie Jackson, proudly one of parliament's Naughtiest Boys, wanted to give his personal input as someone who regularly gets in trouble with the speaker. 'I think this is outrageous,' he said. 'You have kicked me out twice for calling another member a liar, and then I've been out of the House for less than 30 minutes… It is incredibly unfair that I can call another member a liar, rightfully get kicked out of the House, and come back into the House within half an hour, with no apology required.' From across the room, Chris Bishop yelled 'you apologised' – which sent Jackson into a fit of righteous rage. 'I did not apologise. I did not apologise and I would never apologise.' Winston Peters, whose party had now twice voted to name and suspend Swarbrick, then took to his feet to defend her. 'I don't agree with a thing that Chlöe Swarbrick said at all, but this is a robust House where people have a right to express their views as passionately as they may, within certain rules. But I do not think that eviction was warranted.' He compared it to another John Key incident from 2015, when the then prime minister demanded the opposition 'get some guts' regarding sending troops to Iraq, and the recent hullabaloo where Brooke van Velden became the first MP to use the word 'cunt' in the house. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, not one to let Act have such a conspicuous honour to itself, decided to add her name to the list. 'There were many of us that were offended by the 'cunt' word,' she said. She argued that 'spineless' did not reach the same threshold and that the speaker's ruling appeared to be 'suppressing an opinion on the rights of Palestinians'. Brownlee didn't react to the second use of the word 'cunt' under his watch, but the repeated use of 'spineless' sent him into a tizzy. He grasped desperately for his pearls like a Victorian lady about to faint onto a chaise longue after spotting some uncovered ankles. 'I personally found it deeply offensive,' he said. 'It was completely unacceptable' and 'a gratuitous insult'. Brownlee was on a moral crusade to right all the wrongs of society, starting with enforcing slightly more polite wording in the House of Representatives. 'If we don't change behaviour in here, nothing will change outside.' After about half an hour of arguing in circles, Brownlee finally put a stop to it and turned to the questions of the day. Winston Peters kicked things off by complaining, for the umpteenth time this term, about the use of the word 'Aotearoa' on the order paper. 'Who gave anybody the mandate to change this country's name?' he grumbled. And, for the umpteenth time this term, Brownlee told him that Aotearoa was a perfectly acceptable word. Everything was back to normal. Parliament was back on track.
NZ Herald
18 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Chris Hipkins to speak on decision to skip Covid-19 Royal Commission inquiry public hearings
Labour leader and former Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins is to discuss his decision not to attend the second set of public hearings for the Covid-19 Royal Commission. He is set to speak to Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB at 7.07am. You can listen live below. The hearings have been called off after key witnesses, including former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern, refused to appear. Those witnesses, including Hipkins and former ministers Grant Robertson and Ayesha Verrall, are still co-operating with the inquiry. In June last year, a 'phase two' of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons was established by the National-led coalition Government. It was scheduled to take place after the completion of the original inquiry set up under the previous Labour Government, which ministers have already appeared before in private. Chairman Grant Illingworth has the power to summon people to appear before the inquiry, but said he would not use it on Ardern and the other ministers as there weren't any grounds for it. 'On balance, we are of the view that a summons is undesirable, given that the former ministers continue to co-operate with the evidence-gathering of the inquiry. 'It is our opinion that the use of summonses to achieve their participation at a public hearing would be legalistic and adversarial, which our terms of reference prohibit,' Illingworth said. He said he still believed public hearings would enhance public confidence in the inquiry's processes by enabling the public to see former ministers, who have critical insights into the pandemic response, questioned in public. Hipkins, appearing on Herald NOW last month, said he had issues with the way the second phase of the Royal Commission had been set up, particularly the decision to exclude from consideration the years that NZ First was governing with Labour. 'The fact that the [Royal Commission] terms of reference specifically exclude decisions made when NZ First were part of the [Labour-led coalition] Government … I think the terms of reference have been deliberately constructed to achieve a particular outcome, particularly around providing a platform for those who have conspiracy theorist views. 'That seems to have been specifically written into the terms of reference that they get maximum airtime.' Objections of Ardern and the other ministers, published in a minute of the inquiry, included the convention that ministers and former ministers are interviewed by inquiries in private, and departing from that convention would undermine confidence. They were also concerned that the livestreaming and publication of recordings of the hearing creates a risk of those recordings being 'tampered with, manipulated or otherwise misused', a risk the inquiry 'ought to have foreseen and planned for'. Other witnesses raised concerns that providing evidence at public hearings might bring risks of abuse being directed at them and their families. Hipkins is standing firm on the witnesses' decision. 'We have shown up to the inquiry, I have shown up to the inquiry. I have been interviewed by them twice,' he told reporters yesterday. 'I have provided written evidence to the inquiry, I answered every question they had and I attended the interview they scheduled for me. 'They asked for two hours, but they ran out of questions after an hour.' Hipkins said he did not co-ordinate his approach with Ardern and would not speak on behalf of her. 'She is still a very close friend of mine. We have people representing us in common, but any suggestion we colluded with this is wrong.' 'Deserve the basic respect of accountability' National MP Chris Bishop accused Hipkins of running from his record. 'Fresh from fobbing off Treasury's report into Labour's spending, [he] is avoiding accountability by refusing to front up to the Royal Commission,' he said. 'By first dismissing Treasury's report and now refusing to front, Chris Hipkins is telling New Zealanders he does not care about the effects his decisions have had on Kiwis.' Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said Ardern, Verrall and Hipkins' refusal to publicly appear before the commission was a change from 'invading our living rooms daily'. 'Hipkins and co loved the limelight at 1pm every day. They wielded extraordinary powers over citizens' lives, dismissing those who questioned them as uncaring. Now they're refusing to even show up, what a contrast,' he said. 'Tens of thousands of New Zealanders have already engaged with the inquiry, sharing experiences of how their lives were upended. 'They deserve the basic respect of accountability,' Seymour said.
RNZ News
19 hours ago
- RNZ News
Beef and Lamb NZ on proposed Emissions Trading Scheme changes
environment 43 minutes ago Proposed changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme were reported back to the House last night. Beef and Lamb New Zealand chairperson Kate Acland spoke to Corin Dann.
