Safety, rights and practicalities

Otago Daily Times

08-05-2025

It is tempting to cheer on the proposed social media ban for children under 16.
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.