Why banning social media for NZers under 16 is a bad idea – and will affect adults too
By Alex Beattie of
Photo:
RNZ
Analysis:
Government coalition partners National and Act are at odds over proposed restrictions on social media use by New Zealanders aged 16 and under.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon recently announced a National Party private member's bill that would require social media companies to verify someone is aged 16 or older. Luxon said social media was not "always a safe place for young people".
But ACT Party leader David Seymour has dismissed National's proposal, saying it was "simple, neat and wrong".
Even if the member's bill is not chosen out of the parliament biscuit tin, global interest in getting young people off social media is increasing.
In late 2024, Australia passed a law banning children aged under 16 from social media platforms. Advocates, police and politicians in the United Kingdom, United States and elsewhere have all proposed similar laws.
While there is merit in young people spending more time offline, and there are real concerns about the impact of social media on wider society, it's not clear that outright prohibition will achieve what is hoped for.
Here are 10 reasons a blanket ban is not the answer.
Lobby group Before 16 has compared social media to tobacco, saying the platforms should be treated as a public health harm. The implication is that young people could get addicted to social media.
But the standard for diagnosing addiction is high. Most young people are not addicted to social media; they have a habitual relationship with it that is hard to change.
Likewise, comparing digital experiences to food may not capture the full range of interactions and impacts. This often implies value judgements, suggesting online experiences are all about "dopamine hits" (similar to sweet treats) and inherently less valuable or "unhealthy" compared to offline experiences.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says social media is not 'always a safe place for young people'.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
The language of the ban seems to suggest the relationship between social media and users goes in one direction - that people are simply exposed to the good and bad of platforms such as Facebook, TikTok and X. But using social media is not like going outside and getting burnt by the sun.
While social media affects people, it's also a tool we use to actively shape and create meaning for ourselves. It provides social scaffolding for day-to-day lives, identity formation, communication with family overseas, community support, and even a place to complain about parents.
One of most influential books behind the ban is Jonathan Haidt's The Anxious Generation. Haidt claims a causal link between social media use and increased anxiety and depression in Gen Z (those born between 1995 and 2012).
But this claim is highly contentious and has been criticised for failing to consider other causes for the rise in anxiety in young people.
At best, there may be a correlation between social media and poor mental health - they are happening at the same time. Young people are also grappling with the climate crisis, increasing inequality and global instability. These variables are difficult to isolate in a study, meaning social media becomes an easy target.
Critics of social media also assume everyone has a negative experience online. And yes, if you tend to compare yourself to others on social media then you might end up feeling bad about your life.
But not everyone thinks this way or uses social media to compare what they have (and don't have) with others.
Moral panics can occur when emerging technologies challenge established social norms.
Phenomena such as "phubbing" (using a phone to snub someone) challenge what is considered "socially acceptable" behaviour, triggering a deluge of think pieces about how they hurt society.
While some skills may decline (such as reading and writing) with new technology, others like visual or oral storytelling practiced on social media are on the rise.
Banning social media could mean young people miss out on valuable digital skills.
ACT Party leader David Seymour has called the social media ban bill 'simple, neat and wrong'.
Photo:
RNZ / Calvin Samuel
Getting young people off social media might not be a big deal for kids who fit within their community. But if you are young, gay and live in a small town, for example, social media may provide the only space where you can feel safe or celebrated for who you are.
Social media is also a key means for immigrants to stay in touch with their families and culture.
There are also problems with how the ban is supposed to work - something Australia is still grappling with despite already passing a ban into law (which comes into effect at the end of this year).
Policymakers have yet to explain how age verification technologies would work without giving away more personal data to media platforms. And everyone would have to verify their age, regardless of whether they are under 16 years old or not.
Young people are savvier with technology than older generations. They lead with innovations such as FINSTA (fake Instagram) accounts - fake profiles that allow people to post more privately on Instagram without the pressure of conforming to expectations or the judgement of people who know them.
Blanket bans could hurt this technological adeptness and creativity and stop young people from teaching us how to navigate our online and offline lives.
Media literacy is also a crucial skill in today's media saturated age. The skill of unplugging could become part of that curriculum.
Temporarily going offline is an excellent way to make students aware of their relationship with social media. Schools could have media-free classes or courses to build awareness, encourage new habits and support students to develop new routines.
No one is arguing that social media hasn't had a negative effect on individuals and society as a whole. But instead of a ban, why not work to improve the platforms?
We could focus regulatory efforts on creating safer spaces, like we do with physical buildings.
Overseas advocacy work on children's digital rights shows how we can protect children from algorithms, gamification and other predatory tactics used by social media platforms, rather than introducing an outright ban.
Alex Beattie is a lecturer in media and communication at Te Herenga Waka - Victoria University of Wellington.
This story was originally published on
The Conversation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Government Rightfully Sued Over Illegal Climate ‘Plan'
Press Release – Green Party Christopher Luxon has spent the better part of two years telling the country everything is fine while he dismantles effective climate policy, gives handouts to the fossil fuel sector and platforms lobbyists pseudoscience on agricultural emissions. Last week, world-leading climate scientists called out the Government's approach to agricultural emissions. This week, climate lawyers have sued the Government because its Emissions Reductions Plans do not add up. 'Luxon's Government has chosen to pour oil, coal and gas on the climate crisis fire. Their climate 'plan' is not worth the paper it is written on. That's why they're being sued today,' says the Green Party's co-leader and spokesperson for climate change, Chlöe Swarbrick. 'I called it a demonstrable lie when the Prime Minister told Parliament in December 2023 that he wasn't weakening actions on climate – while he was actively weakening actions on climate. It was and remains a demonstrable lie. This is the first leg of the legal case. 'The Luxon Government's second Emissions Reduction Plan relies on unproven, economically unfeasible technologies and plastering our country in pine trees. This is the second leg of the legal case. 'Christopher Luxon has spent the better part of two years telling the country everything is fine while he dismantles effective climate policy, gives handouts to the fossil fuel sector and platforms lobbyist's pseudoscience on agricultural emissions. This would be a meme – a joke – if it wasn't so serious. 'The Greens have shown we can reduce climate-changing emissions five times faster than the Government's 'plan,' while reducing the cost of living and improving our quality of life. 'New Zealanders deserve so much better than this Government taking them for chumps,' says Chlöe Swarbrick.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Potential insurance costs cast shadow over parent visa
Christchurch resident Xiuyun Liu (top left) with her parents, husband and children. Photo: Supplied Insurance experts have raised concerns about potential costs for the long-awaited Parent Boost Visa that was announced by the government last weekend. Immigration Minister Erica Stanford said Sunday the visa would allow parents of citizens and residents to stay in New Zealand for up to five years, with an opportunity for the visa to be extended another five years. Included in the health and income conditions of the visa was a requirement for the parents to obtain sufficient health insurance to cover the first 12 months of their stay. Anyone staying longer than a year would need to renew their health insurance policies for the duration of their stay. Christchurch resident Xiuyun Liu questioned whether the insurance conditions could make it harder for her parents to take advantage of the new visa. Her parents, 70 and 73, had been on visitor and study visas to stay in New Zealand, helping her to look after her young children. "I think it's good that the policy is out now. At least we have hope for the next five years," Liu said. "But what if I can't get insurance for my parents? Even if they can get insurance [now], there will be a day they won't be able to. "For example, my father has high blood pressure and some other issues. ... I think getting insurance will be a problem." The government requires applicants to hold at least one year of health insurance that covers emergency healthcare (minimum $250,000 a year), medical repatriation, return of remains and cancer treatment (minimum $100,000). Paula Lorgelly says many existing health insurance policies have upper age limits. Photo: Supplied Paula Lorgelly, a professor of health economics at the University of Auckland, said she was unaware of any matching insurance products currently on the market, but she expected providers to start work on delivering them. "Currently a number of insurers have a visiting New Zealand policy to provide cover for a range of travel and medical related claims," Lorgelly said. "These do have considerable exclusions with respect to pre-existing conditions, which means they are somewhat affordable, about $2200 a year [for a couple who are both 60 years old]." Lorgelly said many existing policies had upper age limits of 65 or 75, and they would also include exclusions for pre-existing conditions. "If you have such conditions, which often come with age, then the policy holder will need to pay more to cover them," she said. The $2200 figure was likely to be on the low side of what a new policy would offer, if cancer treatment was included, Lorgelly said. Insurance consultant Amy Tao believed any new insurance products would effectively be like existing travel insurance policies. "It will just be upgraded to include the $100,000 cancer treatment cover, for example," Tao said. She said insurance companies might cover some low-risk pre-existing conditions with extra premiums. "But underwriting is definitely required," she said. "If they think the risk is too high, they may not be able to provide insurance even if you pay more." Her estimation of existing travel insurance policies for an elderly couple was similar to the figure Lorgelly shared, citing $1840 for a couple of 65-year-olds and $2514 for two 70-year-olds, with both policies carrying an excess of $100. Tao said any new product would be more expensive, adding extra cover for cancer and pre-existing conditions. "Insurance is for sure going to cost a bit," she said. "Currently, some insurance companies only allow travel insurance to be purchased for a maximum of one year or two years," she said. "It can be renewed after the expiration date but cannot be purchased directly for five years." Speaking to Morning Report on Monday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said people needed to hold health insurance for the duration of their stay. "We're striking the balance of making sure that ... these folks who are not taxpayers, haven't contributed to our publicly funded healthcare system, won't be eligible for those services." Immigration minister Erica Stanford Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Rob Hennin, New Zealand chief executive of health insurance provider NIB, said the company had begun work in line with the government's announcement. "We are already working on a product that aligns with the requirements for this visa, and aim to launch it in September," Hennin said. "While all of the details are yet to be determined, the product would be available to purchase for at least one year to align with government requirements, and cover clients for the entirety of their stay while residing in New Zealand." When asked about the costing, Hennin said it was too soon to say. "We will be working through the product design and details and aim to have this ready by the deadline," he said. Financial Services Council chief executive Kirk Hope said the government had consulted with the industry before the decision was made, and the requirements were reasonable. "I think it's reasonable given what the costs of the taxpayer would be if someone didn't have insurance and had to rely on the taxpayers," Hope said. "So, it's important that people are insured when they're here on visitor visits." Hope said it was important for the types of insurance to be provided by the visitors' home market. Despite the visa's hefty application fee and additional insurance requirements, immigration lawyer Sonny Lam believed the visa would still be popular at face value. "It is not excessively high - flying every six months back and forth is going to cost more than $3000," Lam said. "But the insurance requirement may be harder than it looks," he said. "I had a look at Southern Cross and travel insurance for people over 75 is not so easy." Immigration lawyer Arran Hunt also said the cost of insurance would be "the biggest factor for many". "We expect we'll see more competition in the market, with insurance policies being created to solely meet the criteria of this visa," Hunt said. "The requirements for the visa, as in the pay levels required for sponsors, should mean it is open to almost all couples where both are working," he said. "However, some may struggle to cover the insurance costs, especially for older applicants."
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Pressue on Agriculture Minister to deliver on KiwiSaver promise
The heat is on the agriculture minister to deliver this term on a pre-election promise to unlock KiwiSaver so it can be used to buy a first farm, and not just a house. At the moment if you have been contributing to KiwiSaver for three years you can withdraw almost all the money to buy a first home to live in, although there a few exceptions. Federated Farmers has launched a petition urging the government to losen the rules for accessing the retirement scheme saying it will turbo charge the next generation of farmers and deliver on a committment that Todd Mclay made during a meeting in Morrinsville. Agriculture Minister Todd McClay spoke to Lisa Owen. Tags: To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
