Snapchat is reaching 95% of NZ's 13-24 year olds – but why? Video / Carson Bluck
Opinion by Dr Samantha Marsh
THREE KEY FACTS
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has vowed to ban children under the age of 16 from social media, saying the pervasive influence of platforms like Facebook and TikTok is “doing real harm to our kids”.
The new laws are about be presented to state and territory leaders, before being introduced to parliament in late November.
Dr Samantha Marsh is a senior research fellow in the Department of General Practice and Primary Care at Auckland University. Her research focuses on child and youth health and wellbeing.
OPINION
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has confirmed our transtasman neighbours will embark on a world firstby banning social media for people under the age of 16. The new rule could be in place within the year.
In New Zealand, the current minimum age to legally access most social media platforms is 13. This is not because kids are developmentally ready for social media at 13, but because of 1998 US legislation prohibiting the collection of children’s information without parental consent.
New Zealand still can be a world leader, along with its Aussie cousins, with immense support for such a policy here.
Like Australia, there are some critics here, though their arguments often have notable weaknesses. They tend to support harm reduction techniques rather than focusing on preventative approaches.
Harm reduction is primarily used in the addiction setting with adults. A needle exchange programme is an example. While it doesn’t stop people from using drugs, it helps reduce the level of harm by preventing the spread of disease.
Similarly, teaching kids to seek out and talk to adults after being exposed to a predator online doesn’t prevent them from being harmed by the predator, but it may reduce the impact of that exposure.
Harm reduction focuses on mitigating harm after it occurs. Parents, teachers and decision-makers should carefully consider these “harm reduction” approaches being proposed.
For example, it is argued digital literacy is the real issue and we just need to teach our kids to be good digital citizens.
Being a good digital citizen involves protecting personal information, using good judgment and treating others respectfully. But these things won’t prevent social media-related harm.
Within just a few hours on TikTok, your child can (and probably will) view aggressive and violent behaviour, sexually aggressive content and self-harm videos. Algorithms drive this content to kids; they don’t need to seek it out.
And these algorithms are just too powerful for developing brains.
Teaching kids to be good digital citizens won’t prevent harm – but a policy to avoid exposure in the first place might.
Another argument is that we need to have open discussions with our kids and teach them to have healthy relationships with social media. Education is important – kids need to know why and how social media causes harm – but education alone is unlikely to change behaviour and, therefore, unlikely to prevent harm.
Teaching people about healthy eating doesn’t stop them from indulging in junk food. We shouldn’t expect anything different from social media education. Education can’t compete with a platform that exploits the vulnerabilities of the teenage brain.
We shouldn’t be giving kids a product that’s been shown to harm their wellbeing and then expect them to use it responsibly or hold themselves accountable for their usage. Just as we don’t expect kids to have healthy relationships with other addictive products, the same should apply to social media.
Social media algorithms drive harmful content to kids; they don’t need to seek it out. Photo / AFP
That the “horse has bolted” is also a popular argument against the policy change. Essentially, it is saying it is too late to act and all we can do now is damage control.
Yet, for the countless children who don’t currently have access to social media, the horse is still very much in the “barn”. We can do something to prevent future harm to these kids, and this is what the policy to delay access to social media is partly about – preventing harm for future generations. We must stop thinking we are powerless against the situation we currently find ourselves in.
Critics also argue kids would find ways around the policy change. I agree. They will, just like they do with vapes and alcohol.
However, there was never an expectation policies around the sale of vapes and alcohol to minors would be 100% effective. Similarly, there is no such expectation with the proposed change regarding the age of social media access. These policies are about empowering parents and shifting societal expectations and norms. And for many children, these policies will also help prevent exposure to the harmful product in the first instance.
While harm reduction may be appropriate in some settings, surely we can do better for children – especially when a feasible prevention strategy is available, such as delaying social media access.
Delaying access to social media is not just about reducing harm but about preventing it in the first place. This is not to say delaying access will solve “the problem” – the problem being the negative impacts of social media on our children and teens. This is an oversimplification of the purpose of the proposed policy. Instead, the policy is about changing norms and empowering parents to say “no” to their 12-year-old when they ask for a smartphone.
By focusing on prevention, we prioritise real-world relationships, offline social environments (many of which have eroded due to digital spaces), and opportunities for kids to experience joy and connection beyond the screen. In doing so, we can support today’s children to learn there are other ways to connect and form meaningful relationships.
But if we continue to push the idea kids will be isolated without social media, we’re essentially accepting social media has created a problem that only social media can solve – and that there’s no way out of it.
Too many of us have accepted we’re powerless to create meaningful change. Other countries are now standing up and saying they won’t be told they are powerless any more.
New Zealand can do the same. Our kids deserve more than harm reduction – they deserve no harm caused by social media. At the very least, shouldn’t this be what we strive for?
