Latest news with #Before16
RNZ News
07-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
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.
Scoop
06-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
New Charity Welcomes Private Bill To Set Minimum Age Of 16 To Access Social Media
Press Release – B4-16 Children need to be tech-savvy to thrive in todays digital world – digital literacy is 100% essential. But social media is a different beast. Its designed to be addictive, persuasive, and often exposes young minds to harmful content and pressures theyre … A newly established charity dedicated to improving online safety for children is welcoming the Government's announcement this morning that a private member's bill has been introduced to set a minimum age of 16 to access social media. B4-16 (Before 16) is a non-partisan, independent group of parents, public health experts and business leaders who have been advocating for greater online protection for children, saying New Zealand is falling behind comparable countries in protecting children from online harm. Today's announcement follows Australia's groundbreaking move in November last year to introduce the world's first age restriction for under-16s on social media, requiring platforms to take 'reasonable steps' to prevent underage use. B4-16 is urging New Zealand policymakers to follow suit with a recent Horizon poll revealing 74% of adults support setting an age limit for social media access for children. 'Children need to be tech-savvy to thrive in today's digital world – digital literacy is 100% essential. But social media is a different beast. It's designed to be addictive, persuasive, and often exposes young minds to harmful content and pressures they're not developmentally ready to handle. 'Delaying access for children doesn't mean denying technology. It just means we're giving Kiwi kids time to build resilience, critical thinking, and emotional maturity before we open the gates to an environment that is built for adult engagement,' says B4-16 co-Chair Cecilia Robinson. While Australia, the UK, the EU and the US have introduced legislation to regulate social media and shield young people from online harm, New Zealand has not followed suit. Unlike Australia – which has an independent eSafety Commissioner with powers to investigate harm, enforce standards, and hold platforms accountable – New Zealand has no dedicated regulator. 'At the moment, we put Big Tech first. We need a system that puts our children first,' says Dr Samantha Marsh, a public health researcher with the University of Auckland, and B4-16 advisor. 'It's time for a truly independent regulatory body with the power to protect our children. Social media is harmful in a variety of ways, but particularly for young children. Education alone doesn't change behaviour – regulation is needed,' says Marsh. A growing body of international evidence shows that social media is a high-risk environment for children's mental health, emotional wellbeing, and cognitive development. 'At Outward Bound, I've seen first-hand the positive impact on teens' mental resilience when they step away from social media for days and weeks at a time. If we can protect growing brains and bodies for longer from addictive and harmful algorithms, we will be a better society for it. There is so much at stake,' said B4-16 's Malindi Maclean who is also tumuaki CEO of Outward Bound New Zealand. The Ministry of Health's latest New Zealand Health Survey revealed the number of 15–24 year olds in high or very high psychological distress increased by 400% for the eleven year period to 2023. Studies consistently link social media use with anxiety, depression, disordered eating, sleep disruption, and poor academic outcomes. In 2023, Youthline's State of the Generation Report found that 75% of young people believed mental health was the biggest issue they face, and half of all young people in Aotearoa said social media was a major issue for them. B416 says it's a complex issue which is too big for parents to manage on their own. 'We've got strong research showing social media is harmful, that it's structurally changing our children's brains – and it's doing it at scale,' said Marsh. 'It's a public health issue that requires regulation. New Zealand has laws to protect our children from smoking and alcohol and we need to do the same for social media.' A 2024 Horizon Research poll found that 74% of New Zealanders support a legal age restriction for social media, with 83% concerned about harmful and inappropriate content online. In its report, Meeting the Mental Health needs of young New Zealanders, the Office for the Auditor-General also raised concerns about rising levels of mental distress among young people aged 12-24. It estimated that mental illness costs New Zealand about 5% of gross domestic product annually – more than $20b. B4-16 says the campaign presents a clear opportunity for cross-party action and is seeking government-wide support for regulation. B4-16 is calling for: legislation to set a minimum age of 16 to access social media platforms the implementation of stronger 'age assurance' systems for age verification a dedicated online safety regulator who is responsible for protecting children and young people from online harm, and has enforceable powers
