The government is investigating a ban on those under 16 using social media.
The draft bill is modelled on Australian laws and would force digital platforms to verify the age of users or face heavy fines.
The SMC asked experts to comment.
Dr Andre Mason, Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, University of Waikato, comments:
How might a social media ban for under 16s affect young people in Aotearoa?
“Online communication via social media platforms has emerged as a primary means of communication for many young people throughout the world. Like many things in life, social media can have benefits and harms – generally dependent on how it is being used and monitored. While social media can contribute to feelings of loneliness, misinformation, and exposure to harmful content it can also facilitate a sense of community, connection and belonging – things we know to be associated with positive mental health.
“A blanket ban (if implemented successfully) may reduce exposure to these harms in under 16s but does nothing to necessarily prepare them for the day they turn 16 and can access the content that will still be there. As such, a successful ban would stop any positive impacts of social media only to kick the can [problem] down the road.
“Instead, one could argue that it may be more useful to focus efforts on teaching young people how to safely engage with social media. To use this as an opportunity for education rather than prohibition while also working with social media companies and content creators to adjust algorithms and content to be safer and more adaptive. If we consider that social media is here to stay, a blanket ban without an underlying strategy to educate and minimise harm simply delays an issue. It doesn’t fix it.
“Equally, we need to consider that the impacts of social media on young people are unlikely to be solely explained by social media use alone. There is also the element of smartphone usage more generally and the impacts that this can have on things like sleep, attention, and engagement in the real world – both socially and simply connecting with the world around you. Social media has is consequences (positively and negatively) but, from the perspective of mental health and life, probably sits in a broader conversation about smartphone use.”
Conflicts of interest: None
Professor Ali Knott, Professor in Artificial Intelligence, School of Engineering and Computer Science, Victoria University of Wellington, comments:
Would a ban on social media for under-16s be a good thing for New Zealand?
“It’s great to hear a discussion about whether a ban for under-16s would be ‘good for New Zealand’. But there’s an interesting asymmetry: when social media first arrived, no-one asked whether it would be good for us – it was just a product that we started to use.
“Crucially, social media platforms were never set up to be ‘good for people’: they were set up to generate money for the tech companies that provide them. Social media gets its pervasive impact through the ‘recommender systems’ that choose content for users. A recommender system is an AI tool: it learns what each user likes, then gives them more of the same. These systems are absolutely not designed to further any social goals, or be ‘good for people’ : they are optimised to keep users on the platform, and thus to maximise company profits. My main thought in relation to the current discussion about under-16s is that social media platforms could be designed better for everyone in NZ. They could be optimised for many measures of social wellbeing: the field of possibilities is wide open. Users deserve better!
“What we really need is a much larger overhaul of how social media platforms are set up. Right now, the main social media platforms are all owned by individuals who are newly aligned with an autocratic US president. This is an ideal opportunity to rethink how our social media infrastructure works. I have recently written a piece arguing for this, with colleagues at the Global Partnership on AI: see here. It focusses on European platforms, but the arguments apply just as readily to NZ.”
Conflicts of interest: None
Dr Cassandra Mudgway, Senior Lecturer Above the Bar, Faculty of Law, University of Canterbury, comments:
What harms do under-16s face on social media?
“Young people under 16 face serious harms on social media, including cyberbullying, image-based abuse (like revenge porn or sexualised deepfakes), and exposure to violent or hateful content. These harms stem not just from posted content, but from how platforms are designed to keep users engaged. Algorithms prioritise inflammatory material, and moderation often fails to remove abuse in time. Risks are greater for marginalised groups. Māori, Pasifika, disabled and gender-diverse young people are more intensely targeted and have fewer support structures. Social media
How workable is a ban on social media for under-16s?
“Unlike Australia, NZ does not have minimum safety standards for social media platforms. A ban without regulation risks pushing young people into more harmful, less visible spaces online. It may also expose them to privacy risks through intrusive age checks like facial recognition or ID uploads. Although the proposed Bill mentions privacy, it does not refer to any human rights and does not establish a regulator. Enforcement would rely on government-initiated court action, which is a slow, costly process.
“The proposal is a misdirection; it focuses on restricting access rather than addressing the systemic failures of social media platforms to protect users from harm. Real safety means regulating platforms, like enacting legal duties for social media services based on minimum standards for online safety, ensuring transparency, and demanding accountability for non-compliance.”
Dr Samantha Marsh, Senior Research Fellow, General Practive & Primary Healthcare, University of Auckland, comments:
How might a social media ban for under 16s affect young people in Aotearoa?
“The issue around social media and young people is complex and, like other harmful products, will require a coordinated, long-term public health approach. Nothing will be 100% effective in isolation. However, that’s not the point. A policy change represents a critical first step in addressing the issue – that we are giving children and young adolescents access to a harmful product and currently the companies supplying that product are profiting hugely.
“The real value in increasing the minimum age of access is to begin to shift societal norms and make the choice that many parents want to make – to delay access to social media – the easy choice. Currently, it is the difficult one. It’s a deeply challenging choice shaped by relentless pester power and the genuine fear that their child will be socially excluded.
“In New Zealand, most social media platforms currently have a minimum age requirement of 13. However, the current age restriction is not enforced, meaning many children gain access to social media well before 13. This lack of enforcement undermines any protective intent behind the policy. The proposed policy change, however, will require platforms to implement stricter age verification processes, finally making the minimum age limit a standard that can be upheld, not just suggested.”
What are your thoughts on an age restriction compared with other solutions?
“As a society, we must carefully weigh the potential benefits of social media against its harms. When the evidence shows that the harms outweigh the benefits, particularly for children and younger adolescents, it becomes our responsibility to pursue realistic and effective solutions. Addressing this issue will require a comprehensive public health approach, similar to those used for other harmful products.
“Part of this strategy may involve pressuring tech companies to make their platforms safer. However, we must be honest about the limitations of this approach. Social media platforms are profit-driven, and their business models often depend on maximising user engagement, especially among young people. This makes meaningful reform unlikely if it threatens their profit margins. Internationally, tech companies are already pushing back against the consequences for breaking legislation aimed at improving safeguards.
“Even if some safety measures are introduced, they are unlikely to address the full spectrum of harms. These include persuasive and addictive design elements, the displacement of essential activities like sleep, physical movement, and in-person socialisation, and constant social comparisons and fear of missing out that drive anxiety. Asking tech companies to fundamentally change these features is like asking tobacco companies to remove nicotine from cigarettes.
“In the absence of significant industry reform, we’re left relying on education and the hope that young people will self-regulate and become responsible digital citizens. But this is not a realistic expectation. Adolescents are still developing the cognitive and emotional capacities needed for that level of self-control. Placing the burden on them, or on individual families, is both unfair and ineffective.”
Conflicts of interest: Samantha Marsh is a member of Before16, an advocacy group to protect NZ children from the harms of screens. She is the academic advisor on the Board for Smartphone Free Childhood NZ, and she provides parental education around the impact of screens on children and adolescents.
Professor Kerry Gibson, Associate Professor Sarah Hetrick, and Professor Terryann Clark, University of Auckland, comment:
Comments excerpted from an opinion piece first published by Newsroom
“Things do need to change and there is research that draws attention to the negative effects of internet over-use, cyber-bullying, grooming and abuse, and unhelpful social comparison, as part of social media. But the findings for mental health are much less conclusive, and don’t establish cause and effect.
“Rather, the research shows that social media contributes both positively and negatively to young people’s mental health; and that where there are negative effects, these are small. For example, the most cited primary studies about social media harm reported that correlations accounted for less than 1 percent of the variation in depressive symptoms.
“While there are risks for young people on social media (as there are in many different parts of their lives) and it is vital we do as much as we can to minimise those risks, we do not belive a social media ban for under-16s is the best way to do this, and we’re concerned about the potential, albeit unintended, negative consequences of a ban.
“We are concerned that a young person, finding themselves in trouble online would be unable to reach out to an adult for help because they are aware that their actions are ‘illegal’. Digital natives will find workarounds to any restrictions. Another risk is the mass migration of young people into online activity that is unregulated.
“Young people seek social connection and support via social media […] and mental health professionals and services have increasingly used social media and digital networks to ‘reach in’ and provide support to young people who might not otherwise seek help for distress.”Minimising the potential harm of social media and online spaces to young people’s mental health is going to need a range of solutions. We need to harness our collective concern, support and resources as adults to put pressure on the social media platforms to regulate their content and to provide increased safety to young people in these spaces.
“We might want to find an easy scapegoat for our broader concerns about increasing distress and anxiety of our young people. In times of uncertainty, we tend towards authoritarian solutions that aim to control behaviour rather than understand and redesign it.
“However, in this situation, we do have a choice to think carefully about our options and their implications, to properly understand the nature of the threats we are dealing with, and to work respectfully with young people, their parents, and social agencies to try to find more nuanced and comprehensive solutions to the challenges of social media.”
Conflicts of interest: None declared.