Latest news with #SocialMediaAge-AppropriateUsersBill
NZ Herald
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- NZ Herald
Unlikely social-media law a scroll in right direction
Editorial Hollywood A-lister Hugh Grant has emerged as a timely endorsement for an unlikely National Party member's bill to ban under-16s from social media. Whilst not talking directly to the Social Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill pushed last month by Tukituki MP Catherine Wedd, the father-of-five made headlines at a school in
NZ Herald
26-05-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Law & Society: Social media ban for kids? The name is wrong and the bill is flawed
There is little doubt that tech-savvy under-16s will work out ways to circumvent age restrictions. Photo / Getty Images 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.
The Spinoff
13-05-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Don't just ban social media for under 16s – ban it for everyone
Alex Casey suggests a bold amendment to the social media ban. Last week, National MP Catherine Wedd chucked a member's bill into the biscuit tin that would restrict social media access for anyone under the age of 16. Following a world-first crack down in Australia, the Social Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill would take 'all reasonable steps' to prevent those under 16 years old from accessing social media, with the aim of 'protecting young people from bullying, inappropriate content and social media addiction', said Wedd. The bill unleashed a flurry of reactions, with David Seymour describing it as a 'ridiculously simple' solution while Chris Hipkins was 'broadly supportive' but called for a more detailed government-led bill. Then on Sunday, Luxon announced that social media restrictions for under-16s will become part of the government's official work programme, with education minister Erica Stanford tasked to 'explore options' for cabinet to consider in the future. So while we are spitballing our options, here's a bold consideration from an Age-Appropriate User: why stop at 16? Why not also ban the over 65s, more likely to be in exposed to misinformation and subjected to social media scams? Why not also ban former reality TV stars for sharing weird AI videos? Why not the late teens chasing UV on TikTok? And, most crucially, why not ban me, throw my phone in the biscuit tin and submerge it in piping hot school lunch magma? I saw a thing on Instagram the other day – couldn't tell you who posted it, or if it was a cartoon or an X screenshot – that said something along the lines of 'I'm sorry for viewing your Instagram story within the first 15 seconds, but you have to understand that I haven't put my phone down for six years.' It's a sentiment that cracked me up but also cut deep: I've tried almost everything apart from my Users Device Trapped In Biscuit Tin Magma Bill to curb my addiction. In 2021, I deleted Twitter after staring at the Capitol riots for what felt like four days straight (they lasted four hours). I immediately emailed Twitter HQ and pleaded with them to reinstate it. Instagram followed soon after. 'I started giving up hours of my own weekend to lie on the couch and watch other people's weekends,' I wrote in a chin strokey op ed in 2023, high on my own social media free supply and unaware that I would be back in less than a year. I've tried all the different apps and tricks like turning the screen black and white, all to no avail. I even bought an old Nokia brick phone from a deceased estate on Trade Me, which was all going well until I turned it on and found heaps of scary pixelated photos of old feet in slippers. Last year I embraced the brick once more for a sublime 48-hour smartphone-free challenge in Melbourne, and felt a sense of peace and calm inside my brain I hadn't felt in years. There are plenty of other non-teenagers out there like me who also harbour this kind of sad, silent, social media addiction. A 2021 study found that 36% of New Zealanders considered themselves addicted to their screens, spending over five hours a day in front of screens outside of work or education. Half of the people surveyed (52%) reckoned it negatively impacted their physical health, and more than one-third (37%) said it was bad for their mental health. What these numbers don't go into is how insidiously it seeps in and disrupts your everyday life, until one day you're ignoring entire plotlines in TV shows, missing crucial details in IRL conversations, nipping away from social events to go to the toilet and get a quick hit of… a Shortland Street actor unboxing a toastie machine? An AI video of Rose vlogging the sinking of the Titanic? An influencer getting what looks like half a cup of golden syrup sucked out of her face? In our house, we colloquially refer to the worst of it as a K Hole, a nod to the hallucinatory and dissociative state that sees total detachment from one's body and environment due to the overconsumption of ketamine. But my drug isn't ketamine, it is lip-reading deep dives of Blake Lively on the red carpet, this compelling reel about an egg yolk and an army of matches, and frenzied thrift hauls from mid-western mums with sock curls on the other side of the world. 'Are you in a K-hole again?' my husband will holler into the dark abyss of my office every night, 20 minutes after I furtively muttered 'I'll just go put my phone on charge'. Soon he will find me, paying homage to the guy at the end of Blair Witch Project by facing the corner in the total darkness, head bowed, indeed in a K Hole. Mornings aren't much better either – not when I'm staggering out of the loo with the creaking gait of the Tin Man due to once again sitting on my phone for too long. It's humiliating to admit all of this, but also important to remember that this behaviour isn't normal in anyone, of any age. Terms like 'brain rot' and 'doom scrolling' have become so commonplace that their catastrophic connotations of death and decay barely register anymore. We need more severe language and stricter measures for people like me, who spent over 13 hours on Instagram last week. That's an entire weekend of every month, 700 hours per year, or a solid month of scrolling. Ban the kids, sure, but then please ban me too.
The Spinoff
06-05-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Banning teens from social media won't keep them safe. Regulating platforms might
The new member's bill misdirects attention from the systemic drivers of online harm and places the burden of online safety on young people themselves, while the systems that foster harm continue unchecked. A National MP's proposal to ban under-16s from social media is being pitched as a bold move to protect young people. But the reality is more complicated and far more concerning. If the National Party is serious about addressing the real harms young people face online, banning users is not the solution. Regulating platforms is. The Social Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill, a proposed member's bill led by backbencher Catherine Wedd, would require social media platforms to take 'all reasonable steps' to prevent under-16s from creating accounts. Although only a member's bill yet to be drawn from the biscuit tin, the bill was announced by prime minister Christopher Luxon via X and thereby has the PM's obvious stamp of approval. The bill echoes Australia's recently passed Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, which imposes significant penalties on platforms that fail to keep children under 16 off their services. Wedd, like many who support these measures, points to concerns about online bullying, addiction and other inappropriate content. These are real issues. But the bill misdirects attention from the systemic drivers of online harm and places the burden of online safety on young people themselves. A popular move, but a flawed premise This policy will likely have the support of parents, similar to the school phone ban – it is a visible, straightforward response to something that feels out of control. And it offers the comfort of doing something in the face of real concern. However, this kind of ban performs accountability but does not address where the real power lies. Instead, if the aim of the policy is to reduce online harm and increase online safety, then they should consider holding social media companies responsible for the design choices that expose young people to harm. For instance, according to Netsafe, the phone ban has not eliminated cyberbullying, harassment or image-based sexual abuse for our young people. At the heart of the proposal is the assumption that banning teens from social media will protect them. But age-based restrictions are easily circumvented. Young people already know how to create fake birthdates, or create secondary accounts, or use a VPN to bypass restrictions. And even if the verification process becomes more robust through facial recognition, ID uploads, or other forms of intrusive surveillance, it raises significant privacy concerns, especially for minors. Without additional regulatory safeguards, such measures may introduce further ways to harm users' rights by, for example, normalising digital surveillance. In practice, this kind of policy will not keep young people off social media. It will just push them into less visible, less regulated corners of the internet and into the very spaces where the risk of harm is often higher. Furthermore, there is a growing body of research – including my own – showing that online harm is not simply a function of age or access. It is shaped by the design of platforms, the content that is amplified, and the failures of tech companies to moderate harmful material effectively. Misdiagnosing the problem Online harm is real. But banning access is a blunt instrument. It does not address the algorithms that push disinformation, misogyny and extremism into users' feeds. And it does not fix the fact that social media companies are not accountable to New Zealand law or to the communities they serve. In contrast, the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 holds platforms legally responsible for systemic harm. It shifts the burden of online safety away from individual users and onto the tech companies who design and profit from these systems. New Zealand once had the opportunity to move in that direction. Under the previous government, the Department of Internal Affairs proposed an independent regulator and a new code-based system to oversee digital platforms. That work was shelved by the coalition government. Now, we're offered a ban instead. Some may argue that regulating big tech companies is too complex and difficult — that it is easier to restrict access. But that narrative lets platforms off the hook. Countries like the UK and those in the European Union have already taken meaningful steps to regulate social media, requiring companies to assess and reduce risks, improve transparency, and prioritise user safety. While these laws are imperfect, they prove regulation is possible when there is political will. Pretending otherwise leaves the burden on parents and young people, while the systems that foster harm continue unchecked. What real online safety could look like If the National Party, or the government, truly wants to protect young people online, it should start with the platforms, not the users. That means requiring social media companies to ensure user safety, from design to implementation and use. It may also require ensuring digital literacy is a core part of our education system, equipping rangatahi with the tools to critically navigate online spaces. We also need to address the systemic nature of online harm, including the rising tide of online misogyny, racism and extremism. Abuse does not just happen, it is intensified by platforms designed to maximise engagement, often at the expense of safety. Any serious policy must regulate these systems and not just user behaviour. That means independent audits, transparency about how content is promoted, and real consequences for platforms that fail to act. Harms are also unevenly distributed. Māori, Pasifika, disabled and gender-diverse young people are disproportionately targeted. A meaningful response must be grounded in te Tiriti and human rights and not just age limits. There's a certain political appeal to a policy that promises to 'protect kids', especially one that appears to follow global trends. But that does not mean it is the right approach. Young people deserve better. They deserve a digital environment that is safe, inclusive, and empowering.
The Independent
06-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
New Zealand's prime minister proposes social media ban for children under 16
New Zealand 's prime minister has proposed banning social media for children under 16 years of age, a move similar to Australia which first led efforts to crack down on children's exposure to cyberbullying and violent content. Christopher Luxon of the governing National Party endorsed the members' bill, saying it is 'about protecting our children' and seeking greater accountability from social media companies. Mr Luxon, who leads a coalition government, said the law would force social media companies to verify users age and only allow people above 16 years of age or face fines up to NZ$2m (£901,984). "It's time that New Zealand acknowledged that, for all the good things that come from social media, it's not always a safe place for our young people to be," Mr Luxon told reporters. 'This is about protecting our children. It's about making sure social media companies are playing their role in keeping our kids safe,' he added. The members bill has been put forward on Tuesday by National parliamentarian Catherine Wedd, the author of the bill, modelled off the Australian legislation. "Currently, there are no legally enforceable age verification measures for social media platforms in New Zealand. "My Social Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill is about protecting young people from bullying, inappropriate content and social media addiction by restricting access for under 16-year-olds. 'The bill puts the onus on social media companies to verify that someone is over the age of 16 before they access social media platforms,' Ms Wedd said. The bill has to be selected from a ballot to be formally introduced into the parliament and would require support from the members of the National's coalition parties and the opposition parties to be made into a law. Mr Luxon's National Party is the biggest member of the three-way governing coalition which includes ACT and New Zealand First. ACT has said that it will not support the bill with its leader David Seymour saying a ban would be a hasty decision. 'Just slapping on a ban hastily drafted won't solve the real problem. The real problem has to involve parents, the solution proposed by National doesn't,' Mr Seymour said. 'What I'd like to see is the people worried about this, the educational psychologists, the social media companies themselves, everybody come before a select committee, really thrash it out, and get a solution that is technologically feasible.' He said it would be appropriate to wait to see the effects of Australia's ban on social media for children. However, opposition Labour leader Chris Hipkins said he was open to the idea. 'This is a conversation we need to have as a country. The Australians have been courageous and tackled it. I think New Zealand needs to do the same,' he told Radio New Zealand. NZ First leader Winston Peters also supported the bill but said there is should be a select committee inquiry to form a law. 'It's not just about the coalition, it's about whether enough parties in Parliament have the clarity and clear-eyed sense of what's needed right now for people who are at that age.' Last year in November, Australia cleared the Social Media Minimum Age Bill to keep children off social media until they turn 16. The law which will take a year to come into effect will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33m) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts. The move, one of the world's first toughest crackdown on social media platforms, sparked a backlash from tech giants who said the law was 'rushed', 'vague' and 'problematic'. The National-led government has already prohibited the use of mobile phones in schools. The policy was designed to turn around the country's plummeting literacy rates.
