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.
