Claire Reid: Psychology PHD student on keeping the U16 social media ban alive

National has confirmed they're in talks with Labour as ACT and New Zealand First refuse to back a social media ban for under-16s 

National is saying protecting children should be above politics.

Psychology PHD student and advisor to B416 Claire Reid says she is in support of the ban as 'a first step'. 

"I'm not a politician, I'm a scientist, but what I'm really clear about is that the harms to the children are real," she told Andrew Dickens.

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks ed Be
follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
But the social media band that's proposed continues to bubble away.
Act in New Zealand First are refusing to back it.
So nationals Now confirm they're having talks with labor MPs
because they want to get it past. They said protecting
children should be above politics. So Claire Reed joins me now.
Na Claire is with the Auckland University School of Psychology.
She's a PhD student. She's also an advisor to the

(00:37):
B four sixteen charity community.

Speaker 3 (00:39):
Claire, good morning, Andrew.

Speaker 2 (00:42):
Is this really a fight worth having?

Speaker 3 (00:46):
Do you mean? Is looking after our children?

Speaker 2 (00:50):
Of course looking after our children is, But will this
social media ban as it's proposed right now actually look
after our children?

Speaker 3 (00:58):
Yes? I look absolutely. I believe it well, I believe
it's a good first step. It's not the whole final solution.
I don't think that's what they're looking at proposing. I
think they're proposing a wider solution than just the social
media ban. But yes, it's a very good first step.

Speaker 2 (01:14):
Has didn't Australia prove though, it's hard to implement. People
are vpning all over the place. And if so, what
lessons can we take from what Australia did because they
broke the ground.

Speaker 3 (01:26):
Yes, so I think what Australia has proved so already
the difference between Australia and New Zealand today is thirty percent.
For given that the stats that they have launched in
Australia that thirty percent of Australian kids are off social media,
when those thirty percent are still on social media in
New Zealand today, that's a step. Obviously. The next step
that Australia needs to take is they currently give the information.

(01:49):
It's quite clear the social media companies haven't played ball.
You and I both know that the social media companies
know exactly how much screen time or how the age
of the children on social media. TikTok for years has
been boasting that they know within three to ten seconds
the age of the child Facebook and Australia has been
clearly going to advertisers for years, to beauty advertisers saying

(02:11):
we know the moment that your team and your preteen
daughter is feeling sad, depressed, overweight or ugly, and we
will serve them in that moment a beauty ad or
a weight loss ad. So they have the information, they
know the ages of the children, they're choosing not to
do it. I think what I would love to see
is the next step is for Australia they're gathering information

(02:32):
on this, is seeing how they then make the social
media's media companies actually do something about that.

Speaker 2 (02:39):
Okay, so do you have confidence that Erica Stamford can
convince Labor to actually come on board with them?

Speaker 3 (02:49):
Look, I really hope. So. I'm not a politician, I'm
a scientist, but what I'm really clear about is that
the harms the children are real. I don't think anyone
disagrees with that. In fact, recently we heard at the
recent political debate on this, every single party was clear
about the harms. Something needs to happen things, something needs
to happen as solution needs to be put in place

(03:11):
to protect our children. At the end of the day,
it doesn't mean a which party or who's involved. At
the end of the day, it rises above politics looking
after our children.

Speaker 2 (03:21):
And there's a few people who are politicizing right now
on the text machine and they're making the common claim
that it is not necessarily just don't call it just
an under sixteen social media band. You need to call
it what it is, which is a digital ID. That
it is censorship and it is control. And while this
is obviously of concern, the concern must rest with the
parents rather than making legislation.

Speaker 3 (03:42):
Yeah, I'm not quite sure whever come up with this
digital ID from I've never seen anything that actually says
that's happening. I also think that people, well, look, I'm
not knowing enough to think that this ship hasn't already
sailed in terms of what social media companies do. We
already know that Trump's twenty sixteen campaign, Cabridge Analytica have
as the Facebook data of eighty seven million UE voters

(04:05):
to develop political and psychological profiles, advertised, micro advertised, and
won the election based largely on there. We know that
Snapchat and Facebook and TikTok for many many years have been,
without our knowledge, been collecting biometric data. In fact, TikTok
has been had paid ninety two million dollar settlement in

(04:28):
twenty twenty one for collecting users' personal data, including data
hyve facial technician technology, and sharing the data with third parties.
This ship has sailed. I don't believe that's what the
government's doing. I believe that the government is actually trying
to help them protect our children and parents are clearly

(04:48):
saying they can't do it alone.

Speaker 2 (04:50):
All Right, Claire, I thank you so much for joining
us as much Ariki holiday. Enjoy your time today.

Speaker 1 (04:55):
For more from News talks'b listen live on air or online,
and keep our shows with you wherever you go with
our podcasts on Irradio.