Neil Sands
New Zealand should ban under-16s from social media and create a stronger regulatory regime to protect young people from online harm and hold digital platforms to account, a parliamentary inquiry says.
The Education & Workforce Select Committee inquiry’s interim report found that “online harm in New Zealand is widespread and deeply felt by young people”.
While acknowledging that online activity could have positive impacts, such as fostering a sense of community, and noting the complexity of drawing a direct link between digital media and harmful effects on young people, the cross-party inquiry concluded: “We have received sufficient evidence to say that online harm is a public health issue that requires collective attention from government, businesses, online platforms and civil society.”
A majority of committee members favoured a social media ban for under 16s, similar to the one introduced in Australia this week, although the Greens opposed the move and ACT said more research was needed.
The inquiry also called for:
- the establishment of a national online safety regulator’;
- measures to make online platforms “proportionately liable” for content;
- more resources to promote digital literacy;
- tighter restrictions around online advertising; and
- a ban on “nudify” apps that can be used to generate sexually explicit deepfakes.
It said online platforms should also be forced to be more transparent about how their algorithms work, saying “the majority of us believe the risk of algorithmic harm outweighs any advantage”.
Addictive by design
While the inquiry’s recommendations are not binding on the government, they are likely to influence policy thinking in an area generating increasing concern worldwide as lawmakers struggle to match the pace of technological change.
The inquiry heard from social media giants Google, Meta, and TikTok, which all emphasised the online safety features they have introduced to protect users.
The committee praised these efforts and said the companies should do more to promote them, but pointed to the financial imperative that drives social media giants to constantly hike engagement.
“We consider that there is a level of conflict between the business models of social media platforms and the need to most effectively shield young people from harm. We consider that social media platforms have a commercial incentive to design their platforms to be addicting and stimulating for young people. However, these features may contribute to psychological and behavioural harm,” it said.
The report said that inadequate regulation and “safe harbour” provisions, such as those in the Harmful Digital Communications Act, meant online media companies effectively escaped liability for many of the social harms their businesses caused.
It recommended such companies should face more robust legislative requirement and called for a review of the safe harbour provisions.
Many submissions to the inquiry, including one from The Law Association of New Zealand’s (TLANZ) Technology & Law Committee, highlighted the fragmented nature of online regulation in New Zealand, where around a dozen government agencies, ministries and industry bodies are responsible for overseeing various aspects of online activity.
The report said there should be “a proactive, system-wide approach to social media platforms” and a single national regulator responsible for online safety.
It said that in addition to dealing with non-compliance and complaints, the regulator “should be empowered to be sufficiently agile to address the development of new technologies and platforms”.
While this addresses criticism that current regulations are toothless, it does not examine what, if anything, can be done to enforce compliance by overseas-based platforms.
An example cited in TLANZ’s submission involves a notorious pro-suicide forum which has been linked to the deaths of five young Kiwis but has simply ignored takedown requests from New Zealand authorities.
Age ban ‘imperfect’ but warranted
Undoubtedly the report’s most attention-grabbing recommendation is the ban on social media for children.
It was made even though tech experts argued against the move during the inquiry’s public hearings. They labelled a ban a quick fix that could be easily bypassed and said it could drive children’s online activity underground, toward riskier, more harmful content.
“We accept the advice from some submitters that there are age verification challenges, and that some young online users will find ways around a ban,” the report said.
“The majority of us nevertheless are of the view that, while imperfect, the level of online harm currently being sustained by young people warrants introducing an age-delay restriction as part of a broader reform agenda.”
The committee promised further details when the inquiry’s final report is published early next year, which will also allow for a preliminary assessment of the Australian ban that took effect on December 10.
The Australian ban means that children under 16 cannot create or hold social media accounts. Courts can order civil penalties for online platforms that do not comply with the requirements.
The report said Demark had also announced its intention to implement a social media ban for under-15s, while France requires parental permission for under-15s to use social media.
In New Zealand, Education Minister Erica Stanford is examining how a social media ban would work after a private member’s bill from National MP Catherine Wedd was selected in the biscuit tin legislative ballot.
Another private member’s bill, from ACT MP Laura McClure, would criminalise the creation, possession, publication and sale of sexually explicit deepfakes.
In the inquiry’s report, the Greens did not detail why they oppose an age-restriction on social media, with ACT saying policy recommendations should not be made until the final report.
0 Comments