May 8, 2025 • 18 mins
The National Party is looking to follow Australia and ban social media for under-16s.
It has submitted a members bill that would look to limit how young people engage with the likes of Instagram, TikTok and Facebook.
Since Australia’s world-leading ban was passed into law last year, multiple countries are looking at bans as a way of addressing concerning social media habits.
But is a ban actually feasible, and would it address the real issues with social media?
Today on The Front Page, Dr Alex Beattie, a media lecturer at Victoria University of Wellington joins us to discuss the potential ban and if we should be following in Australia’s footsteps.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Sound Engineer: Richard Martin
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Kyoder. I'm Richard Martin in for Chelsea Daniels and this
is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by the
New Zealand Herald. The National Party is looking to follow
Australia and ban social media for under sixteens. It has
submitted a member's bill that would look to limit how
(00:24):
young people engage with the likes of Instagram, TikTok and Facebook.
Since Australia's world leading ban was passed into law last year,
multiple countries are looking at bans as a way of
addressing concerning social media habits. But is a ban actually
feasible and would it address the real issues with social
media today? On the Front Page, Doctor Alex Batty, a
(00:46):
media lecturer at Victoria University of Wellington, joins us to
discuss the potential ban and if we should be following
in Australia's footsteps. Okay, so National and at odds here
and we'll dig deeper in a moment. But I guess,
just sort of briefly, what's behind this move from National.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Well, there's an increasing interest in spending more time offline
and I think everyone can relate to that. But alongside
there's also increasing research on the topic of how social
media affects people, particularly young people, And there was a
book published a couple of years ago by a professor
of psychology called Jonathan Hyatt, for The Anxious Generation, and
my understanding is that book has had a large impact
(01:30):
on policy both in Australia and here in New Zealand.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
And then, so what is act's main issue with this proposal.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Well, I can't speak for ACT, but I do understand
that they have raised some good points around how on
earth to enforce such a band age. Verification technology is
quite immature, meaning that they're not that reliable. They use
a combination of people in putting their users and putting
their age, but also AI to assess photos and to
(02:00):
to make a calculation based on how old a user is,
and there's lots of issues with that. So I think
just the practicality of the ban is one of the issues.
And perhaps another issue that X has is maybe freedom
of expression. By banning social media, you're actually taking away
young people's tools to express themselves online.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Yeah, you mentioned some of those verification tools there. Do
we know at all how this band would actually play out?
Speaker 2 (02:24):
No, we don't, but I know that in Australia, they're
working quite hard to whip this all out, but there's
still big question marks on how these technologies will work.
Academics in Australia criticizing these technologies for not working very
well or being very easy to work around. And they
also require buy in from the platforms who will have
their own opinion about this band and how it will affect
(02:47):
their business.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
Yeah, because I guess the other thing as well is like, yeah,
if we're talking about using AI or uploading some sort
of ID that you know adults are going to have
to be doing this as well, raises issues around privacy
and giving too much information, right.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Yes, I mean we already give so many information to
these platforms, right we don't think about all the data
we share and all the insights that we give these platforms.
But giving a copy of our ad seems like another
step something that you usually gives your government rather than
a social media platform that's from another country. So I
think people are right to really raised some privacy concerns
(03:24):
about that, particularly for young people.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
To break it down, I guess what actually counts as
social media because I guess you know you hear that term,
and especially with the younger generation that your mind goes
immediately to Instagram and TikTok, and you know, for a
millennial that's probably more Facebook and things. But I've seen
some discussion around arguments whether or not YouTube counts as
this because like they've got YouTube shorts, which is essentially
(03:47):
a TikTok line, right.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Yes, that's right.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
I believe the spill is looking at any online platform
that has an element of social interaction, which arguably is
even broader than social media. So as you, as you
rightly pointed out YouTube, you have the ability to comment
and discuss underneath the video that would come within scope. Interestingly,
Google lobbies quite hard to get YouTube removed from the
(04:11):
Australian Band, so it could be interesting to see if
that happens here, depending on if the bell picks up momentum.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
But look, we're looking at a wide.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
Scope of tools that are within scope, and that's raising
again feasibility issues.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
You know, is.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Discords or Twitch or readdits some of these other platforms
which have different elements of social interaction, less news feed
and less sort of you know content, maybe groand TikTok,
but there is a large range, a wide range of
tools that it's going to be really hard to keep
on top of.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
I saw Chris Hopkins as well mentioned something like Roadblocks,
which is like a game that has a social chat element.
I've never played it personally, but yet you know Fortnite
and things like these, any things where anything where people
can talk to each other, I guess is muddy, right, Yes, I.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Mean it's at what point are they try trying to,
you know, ban the entire Internet, because the Internet is
social interaction. So you know, I can understand the intent
behind this bill, but it's just not workable. It's just
not feasible.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
There's also, like you mentioned something like Redda there, whereas
you know, on a site like Redder, there's not the
sort of expectation to be yourself in the same way
that you know, Facebook and Instagram and like sort of
traditional social media is that you're representing yourself. So you know,
when you introduce that element of anonymity, that's a whole
other issue, right.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
That's right, And I suspect this sort of speaks to
you know, this bill is designed by people who have
a very different relationship to the Internet. Gen x's or
baby boomers. We spend less time online and don't perhaps
understand these nuances, these differences between a reddit it's and
an instagram, the role of anonymity, as you were saying,
(05:53):
they don't quite understand, you know, these these differences, and
there is quite a generational difference I think on this.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Topic because at the moment, most sort of social medias
have in their terms and conditions that you need to
be thirteen, I believe to create an account. But you know,
as you mentioned earlier, there are ways around there, and
that thirteen year old limit comes not from developmental safety,
but like a legislation in the US against collecting children's data.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Is that right? Yes, I believe that's true.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
The way in which they manage or govern thirteen's and
under is through users sharing their age. And then also,
as I talked about before, using AI to make an assessment,
if the person actually is older than thirteen, potentially something
similar would need to happen for this ban, But it's
very very flimsy, Like do you.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Think that thirteen is a good age for that sort
of thing, because I mean, you know, a lot of
development happens between thirteen and sixteen, So like, is there
a line that needs to be drawn somewhere? And I guess,
what's the difference between drawing at thirteen versus drawing it
at sixteen.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
It's a great question, and I think depending on who
you ask, you get different answers.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
I work in media and communication.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
So I'm always interested in the kind of more social
media and communications aspect of these questions.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
If you talk to a psychologists, they'll think about this developmentally.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
What I do think is interesting is these platforms are
thinking about this right now. I know that Meta has
developed a special type of account for teenagers for those
ages between thirteen and sixteen. So they're responding to these
increasing concerns about how much time young people are spending
on their platforms, and they're offering a kind of paired
back version of Satan Instagram and Facebook, whe there's more
(07:38):
privacy settings, there's sort of nudges to get you off.
So the platforms themselves are responding to this issue, and
it will be interesting to see how a public response to.
Speaker 4 (07:52):
Parents are constantly telling us that they're really worried about
the impact that social media is having on their children,
and they say they're really struggling to manage access to
social media. Now I'm here with National MP Catherine wed
who has launched an incredible bill, a member's bill actually
to restrict social media for under sixteen year olds.
Speaker 5 (08:08):
That's right, Chris. This bill is about protecting children from
online harm, including bullying, addiction, and exposure to inappropriate content.
By restricting social media access for under sixteen year olds,
it puts the onus on social media companies to verify
that someone is over the age of sixteen before they
access social media platforms, and it mirrors the approach taken
(08:29):
in Australia and follows work in other countries like the UK,
the EU and Canada.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Should the onus even really be on the companies to
be doing these things?
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Do you think? Absolutely?
Speaker 2 (08:43):
I mean, these platforms have become multi billion dollar companies
in a reasonably short amount of time, and they certainly
should be responsible for a lot of a lot of
these kind of alleged arms. I'm against the banning because
I think it's too simplistic and it doesn't really work.
(09:03):
But I'm definitely all for more regulation on these platforms
to create safer spaces, spaces that children young people can use.
And you know, we could do so much to protect
children from the algorithms, predatory practices gamification that.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Also can be quite predatory.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
I think we could do a lot to actually regulate
these digital spaces like we do with physical spaces.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
You know, we know that there are standards.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Every time you walk into a building, you know that
it's a safe place to be right some the same
digital spaces. It's a bit like the wild West, and
I think we could give consumers and people confidence that
these are safer spaces.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
I read in an article you wrote that there's a
fallacy in calling people addicted to social media. You argue
that their habitual users. Do you mind just sort of
explaining what you mean the difference there?
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Sure, well, I think we're all pretty familiar with just
casually saying I'm so addicted to Instagram, I'm so addicted
to my phone. What's happened is, you know, the term
is being so used so broadly, it's at risk of
losing meaning. You talk to any clinical psychologist or someone
that works in addiction services. There's a reason why there's
(10:27):
quite a high standard for addiction. But it's gambling, any alcohol,
or in this case, you know, digital sort of social
media or videogome addiction, and one of the requirements has
to be making some kind of direct negative impact on
your life. So it's one thing to struggle to put
your phone down, but until it's actually making a real
(10:47):
material negative impact on your life, that it doesn't quite
go into that category of addiction. What a lot of
people have as a habitual relationship to their phone, so
you know, using your phone as a habit without thinking.
Every time you pull out your phone and unlockers or
start scrolling social media, you know it's working at that
habitual level. That's not addiction. That's just creating a new habit,
(11:10):
and it means that you can change that habit, and
it can be hard. There's lots of good books out
there that can give you advice, but it's not addiction.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
That's a higher.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Standard, and if we use it too broadly then it
kind of undermines the experiences that actually addictive people do have.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
I mean, obviously there's no shortage of documentation and commentary
about are the dangers of spending too much time on
social media? But there is also some positive aspects right
that could be taken away from people if this band
were to go ahead.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
One of my favorite things to do with my students
is to ask them to temporarily go offline a day,
forty out hours, thirty two hours whatever a weekend. And
when you go offline, you become more acutely aware of
your relationship with your phone, the bad and the good,
and how we actually use these things for a lot
of good things, keeping in touch with your grandma on
the other side of the world, or you know, sort
(12:03):
of overseas and you're you're keeping touch with or you
know a number of things. And it's not an easy
feats to suddenly go offline. It comes with many challenges
and I think it's a really big ass with young
people to suddenly tell them to get offline.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Also, yeah, I saw you mentioned because social media has
you're able to spread out your experience and you know,
used to just be calling out into the void. But
if you're going through something now, and especially you know
there's kids in like a rural towns that are going
through something, they now have the ability to like talk
to other people going through the same thing, where you
(12:38):
know they used to have to hop on a bus
to a major city to talk to someone about that.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
Right, that's right.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
I think if you're if you're already fit in in
your community, then going offline is less of a tough
task because people like you are in your community. But
if you're different for whatever reason, if you're you know,
if you're gay, or if you're from a different ethnicity
and you stand out, then going offline could be a
(13:04):
lot harder. Because these online communities that social media provides
are these only spaces where you can be celebrated.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
For who you are.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
So social media is a crucial place for identity formation,
and that kind of stuff has not really been talked
about enough. So it's easy for the kids that already
fit in to maybe go offline, but less so for
the others.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
The introduction of this bell sort of feels like a
next step to what the government introduced last year. The
Phones Away for the Day policy about banning phones and
schools a year on from that now was introduced in
April of last year. How has that gone?
Speaker 3 (13:41):
Do we know? We know a little, but we could
learn a lot more. So.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
The students that have gone through this high school phone
band have started university for the first time of this year,
and I'm about to teach a lot of them and
I can't wait to do that and put it to
them and short you know what we tend to do
in this area as we just to the parents, don't
talk to the younger people enough.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
There's been I think one survey.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Researchers have our students about their experiences and during the
high school phone bank and the responses are mixed. Some
enjoy the reduction of distractions, while others feel frustrated that
they can't use their phones during the school breaks and
think that maybe there's somewhere in the middle that the
policy should should land. But we could do so much
(14:24):
more research in the space, and it's research that I'm doing.
I'm working with my first year university students to give
them tools to be able to not use their phones
during lectures at university and we'll see how they're kind
of learning, experience changes, and whether or not they're able
to focus more during class.
Speaker 6 (14:45):
But just putting together a band slap dash in the
middle of a weaker parliament and saying this is a solution,
it's hard to believe that a solution that simple can
actually solve a problem this complex. And here's just one
reason why you're not actually banning kids from the internet,
you're banning kids from social media companies. There's still a
million other places on the Internet that can have those problems,
(15:07):
and actually, you know, if anything, while social media companies
are banded in some ways at least a relatively controlled
environment compared with where they can end up in the dark.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
Web, and actors suggested a quality public inquiry into social
media rather than a band. Do you think that would
work well?
Speaker 2 (15:27):
I know that there's been a lot of these sorts
of inquiries already, and there's a number of experts and
interest groups that have already met and continuing to meet
to chat about this. I think what Act's doing is
trying to appea it's voting base, and they suspect a
lot of the ACT membership agree with the band, or
at least. What this highlights is how complex this issue
(15:50):
is because on one level, a lot of people want
the band, but at the same time it raises issues
like restricting freedom of expression, so it's complex. I do
like the for more research, and I think we need
research from all disciplines, experts in health, experts and media,
experts in psychology, experts in computer science. I think this
is a complex problem that needs to draw from many
(16:12):
different areas of expertise to come up with solutions.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
It's I guess the million dollar question, but like, what
is the answer here? Is there a success story from
anywhere in the world that we could be looking to
follow their leader or anything like that.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
No, I don't believe. So it's far to early days.
I know there are small towns in different parts of
the world. There's maybe some Albans somewhere in the UK
that have no phones for young people, and they're kind
of interesting case studies, but it's generally too early to
be able to give any definitive answer. I don't think
we maybe ever will have a definitive answer. You know,
(16:46):
this isn't something like tobacco or alcohol where you can
actually definitively say through scientific experimentation whether this thing is
good for you or bad for you. It's just too complex,
you know. We use social media for so many different things.
So what I think will happen is we'll see emerging
different approaches and cultures to the topic. Will have more
(17:06):
tech free schools, so parents have the opportunities and the
choice to send their children either to a tech positive
or a tech skeptical school, and other kind of you know,
ways of thinking and using or not using these technologies.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
I don't think this is too is going to go
away for a long time.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
Yeah, Just it's interesting because a lot of people are
saying like, oh, well, it's too late, you know, the
horse has bolted. But it's interesting you're kind of saying
it's actually too early in some ways.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
Right.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Well, I wonder if they're referring to you know, you
can't put social media back in the box because it's out,
and so if you ban it for young people, they're
just going to go somewhere else. And I do largely
agree with that. You know, social media has changed the
way we relate to each other norms. You know, I
talk to students these days and just the expectation around
(17:53):
how available you should be has completely changed. You know,
people generally expect to be available all the time, and
that wasn't the case before social media, before mobile media.
So the norms have changed the things that we take
for granted. So it is really hard to go back
when those kind of things have changed.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Thanks for joining us, Alex.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at inzidherld dot co, dot NZID. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sells. I'm Richard Martin. Subscribe to the
Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts,
and tune in on Monday for another look behind the headlines.
Kyoder. I'm Richard Martin in for Chelsea Daniels and this
is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by the
New Zealand Herald. The National Party is looking to follow
Australia and ban social media for under sixteens. It has
submitted a member's bill that would look to limit how
(00:24):
young people engage with the likes of Instagram, TikTok and Facebook.
Since Australia's world leading ban was passed into law last year,
multiple countries are looking at bans as a way of
addressing concerning social media habits. But is a ban actually
feasible and would it address the real issues with social
media today? On the Front Page, Doctor Alex Batty, a
(00:46):
media lecturer at Victoria University of Wellington, joins us to
discuss the potential ban and if we should be following
in Australia's footsteps. Okay, so National and at odds here
and we'll dig deeper in a moment. But I guess,
just sort of briefly, what's behind this move from National.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Well, there's an increasing interest in spending more time offline
and I think everyone can relate to that. But alongside
there's also increasing research on the topic of how social
media affects people, particularly young people, And there was a
book published a couple of years ago by a professor
of psychology called Jonathan Hyatt, for The Anxious Generation, and
my understanding is that book has had a large impact
(01:30):
on policy both in Australia and here in New Zealand.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
And then, so what is act's main issue with this proposal.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Well, I can't speak for ACT, but I do understand
that they have raised some good points around how on
earth to enforce such a band age. Verification technology is
quite immature, meaning that they're not that reliable. They use
a combination of people in putting their users and putting
their age, but also AI to assess photos and to
(02:00):
to make a calculation based on how old a user is,
and there's lots of issues with that. So I think
just the practicality of the ban is one of the issues.
And perhaps another issue that X has is maybe freedom
of expression. By banning social media, you're actually taking away
young people's tools to express themselves online.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Yeah, you mentioned some of those verification tools there. Do
we know at all how this band would actually play out?
Speaker 2 (02:24):
No, we don't, but I know that in Australia, they're
working quite hard to whip this all out, but there's
still big question marks on how these technologies will work.
Academics in Australia criticizing these technologies for not working very
well or being very easy to work around. And they
also require buy in from the platforms who will have
their own opinion about this band and how it will affect
(02:47):
their business.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
Yeah, because I guess the other thing as well is like, yeah,
if we're talking about using AI or uploading some sort
of ID that you know adults are going to have
to be doing this as well, raises issues around privacy
and giving too much information, right.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Yes, I mean we already give so many information to
these platforms, right we don't think about all the data
we share and all the insights that we give these platforms.
But giving a copy of our ad seems like another
step something that you usually gives your government rather than
a social media platform that's from another country. So I
think people are right to really raised some privacy concerns
(03:24):
about that, particularly for young people.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
To break it down, I guess what actually counts as
social media because I guess you know you hear that term,
and especially with the younger generation that your mind goes
immediately to Instagram and TikTok, and you know, for a
millennial that's probably more Facebook and things. But I've seen
some discussion around arguments whether or not YouTube counts as
this because like they've got YouTube shorts, which is essentially
(03:47):
a TikTok line, right.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Yes, that's right.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
I believe the spill is looking at any online platform
that has an element of social interaction, which arguably is
even broader than social media. So as you, as you
rightly pointed out YouTube, you have the ability to comment
and discuss underneath the video that would come within scope. Interestingly,
Google lobbies quite hard to get YouTube removed from the
(04:11):
Australian Band, so it could be interesting to see if
that happens here, depending on if the bell picks up momentum.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
But look, we're looking at a wide.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
Scope of tools that are within scope, and that's raising
again feasibility issues.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
You know, is.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Discords or Twitch or readdits some of these other platforms
which have different elements of social interaction, less news feed
and less sort of you know content, maybe groand TikTok,
but there is a large range, a wide range of
tools that it's going to be really hard to keep
on top of.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
I saw Chris Hopkins as well mentioned something like Roadblocks,
which is like a game that has a social chat element.
I've never played it personally, but yet you know Fortnite
and things like these, any things where anything where people
can talk to each other, I guess is muddy, right, Yes, I.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Mean it's at what point are they try trying to,
you know, ban the entire Internet, because the Internet is
social interaction. So you know, I can understand the intent
behind this bill, but it's just not workable. It's just
not feasible.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
There's also, like you mentioned something like Redda there, whereas
you know, on a site like Redder, there's not the
sort of expectation to be yourself in the same way
that you know, Facebook and Instagram and like sort of
traditional social media is that you're representing yourself. So you know,
when you introduce that element of anonymity, that's a whole
other issue, right.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
That's right, And I suspect this sort of speaks to
you know, this bill is designed by people who have
a very different relationship to the Internet. Gen x's or
baby boomers. We spend less time online and don't perhaps
understand these nuances, these differences between a reddit it's and
an instagram, the role of anonymity, as you were saying,
(05:53):
they don't quite understand, you know, these these differences, and
there is quite a generational difference I think on this.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Topic because at the moment, most sort of social medias
have in their terms and conditions that you need to
be thirteen, I believe to create an account. But you know,
as you mentioned earlier, there are ways around there, and
that thirteen year old limit comes not from developmental safety,
but like a legislation in the US against collecting children's data.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Is that right? Yes, I believe that's true.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
The way in which they manage or govern thirteen's and
under is through users sharing their age. And then also,
as I talked about before, using AI to make an assessment,
if the person actually is older than thirteen, potentially something
similar would need to happen for this ban, But it's
very very flimsy, Like do you.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Think that thirteen is a good age for that sort
of thing, because I mean, you know, a lot of
development happens between thirteen and sixteen, So like, is there
a line that needs to be drawn somewhere? And I guess,
what's the difference between drawing at thirteen versus drawing it
at sixteen.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
It's a great question, and I think depending on who
you ask, you get different answers.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
I work in media and communication.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
So I'm always interested in the kind of more social
media and communications aspect of these questions.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
If you talk to a psychologists, they'll think about this developmentally.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
What I do think is interesting is these platforms are
thinking about this right now. I know that Meta has
developed a special type of account for teenagers for those
ages between thirteen and sixteen. So they're responding to these
increasing concerns about how much time young people are spending
on their platforms, and they're offering a kind of paired
back version of Satan Instagram and Facebook, whe there's more
(07:38):
privacy settings, there's sort of nudges to get you off.
So the platforms themselves are responding to this issue, and
it will be interesting to see how a public response to.
Speaker 4 (07:52):
Parents are constantly telling us that they're really worried about
the impact that social media is having on their children,
and they say they're really struggling to manage access to
social media. Now I'm here with National MP Catherine wed
who has launched an incredible bill, a member's bill actually
to restrict social media for under sixteen year olds.
Speaker 5 (08:08):
That's right, Chris. This bill is about protecting children from
online harm, including bullying, addiction, and exposure to inappropriate content.
By restricting social media access for under sixteen year olds,
it puts the onus on social media companies to verify
that someone is over the age of sixteen before they
access social media platforms, and it mirrors the approach taken
(08:29):
in Australia and follows work in other countries like the UK,
the EU and Canada.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Should the onus even really be on the companies to
be doing these things?
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Do you think? Absolutely?
Speaker 2 (08:43):
I mean, these platforms have become multi billion dollar companies
in a reasonably short amount of time, and they certainly
should be responsible for a lot of a lot of
these kind of alleged arms. I'm against the banning because
I think it's too simplistic and it doesn't really work.
(09:03):
But I'm definitely all for more regulation on these platforms
to create safer spaces, spaces that children young people can use.
And you know, we could do so much to protect
children from the algorithms, predatory practices gamification that.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Also can be quite predatory.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
I think we could do a lot to actually regulate
these digital spaces like we do with physical spaces.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
You know, we know that there are standards.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Every time you walk into a building, you know that
it's a safe place to be right some the same
digital spaces. It's a bit like the wild West, and
I think we could give consumers and people confidence that
these are safer spaces.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
I read in an article you wrote that there's a
fallacy in calling people addicted to social media. You argue
that their habitual users. Do you mind just sort of
explaining what you mean the difference there?
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Sure, well, I think we're all pretty familiar with just
casually saying I'm so addicted to Instagram, I'm so addicted
to my phone. What's happened is, you know, the term
is being so used so broadly, it's at risk of
losing meaning. You talk to any clinical psychologist or someone
that works in addiction services. There's a reason why there's
(10:27):
quite a high standard for addiction. But it's gambling, any alcohol,
or in this case, you know, digital sort of social
media or videogome addiction, and one of the requirements has
to be making some kind of direct negative impact on
your life. So it's one thing to struggle to put
your phone down, but until it's actually making a real
(10:47):
material negative impact on your life, that it doesn't quite
go into that category of addiction. What a lot of
people have as a habitual relationship to their phone, so
you know, using your phone as a habit without thinking.
Every time you pull out your phone and unlockers or
start scrolling social media, you know it's working at that
habitual level. That's not addiction. That's just creating a new habit,
(11:10):
and it means that you can change that habit, and
it can be hard. There's lots of good books out
there that can give you advice, but it's not addiction.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
That's a higher.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Standard, and if we use it too broadly then it
kind of undermines the experiences that actually addictive people do have.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
I mean, obviously there's no shortage of documentation and commentary
about are the dangers of spending too much time on
social media? But there is also some positive aspects right
that could be taken away from people if this band
were to go ahead.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
One of my favorite things to do with my students
is to ask them to temporarily go offline a day,
forty out hours, thirty two hours whatever a weekend. And
when you go offline, you become more acutely aware of
your relationship with your phone, the bad and the good,
and how we actually use these things for a lot
of good things, keeping in touch with your grandma on
the other side of the world, or you know, sort
(12:03):
of overseas and you're you're keeping touch with or you
know a number of things. And it's not an easy
feats to suddenly go offline. It comes with many challenges
and I think it's a really big ass with young
people to suddenly tell them to get offline.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Also, yeah, I saw you mentioned because social media has
you're able to spread out your experience and you know,
used to just be calling out into the void. But
if you're going through something now, and especially you know
there's kids in like a rural towns that are going
through something, they now have the ability to like talk
to other people going through the same thing, where you
(12:38):
know they used to have to hop on a bus
to a major city to talk to someone about that.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
Right, that's right.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
I think if you're if you're already fit in in
your community, then going offline is less of a tough
task because people like you are in your community. But
if you're different for whatever reason, if you're you know,
if you're gay, or if you're from a different ethnicity
and you stand out, then going offline could be a
(13:04):
lot harder. Because these online communities that social media provides
are these only spaces where you can be celebrated.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
For who you are.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
So social media is a crucial place for identity formation,
and that kind of stuff has not really been talked
about enough. So it's easy for the kids that already
fit in to maybe go offline, but less so for
the others.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
The introduction of this bell sort of feels like a
next step to what the government introduced last year. The
Phones Away for the Day policy about banning phones and
schools a year on from that now was introduced in
April of last year. How has that gone?
Speaker 3 (13:41):
Do we know? We know a little, but we could
learn a lot more. So.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
The students that have gone through this high school phone
band have started university for the first time of this year,
and I'm about to teach a lot of them and
I can't wait to do that and put it to
them and short you know what we tend to do
in this area as we just to the parents, don't
talk to the younger people enough.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
There's been I think one survey.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Researchers have our students about their experiences and during the
high school phone bank and the responses are mixed. Some
enjoy the reduction of distractions, while others feel frustrated that
they can't use their phones during the school breaks and
think that maybe there's somewhere in the middle that the
policy should should land. But we could do so much
(14:24):
more research in the space, and it's research that I'm doing.
I'm working with my first year university students to give
them tools to be able to not use their phones
during lectures at university and we'll see how they're kind
of learning, experience changes, and whether or not they're able
to focus more during class.
Speaker 6 (14:45):
But just putting together a band slap dash in the
middle of a weaker parliament and saying this is a solution,
it's hard to believe that a solution that simple can
actually solve a problem this complex. And here's just one
reason why you're not actually banning kids from the internet,
you're banning kids from social media companies. There's still a
million other places on the Internet that can have those problems,
(15:07):
and actually, you know, if anything, while social media companies
are banded in some ways at least a relatively controlled
environment compared with where they can end up in the dark.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
Web, and actors suggested a quality public inquiry into social
media rather than a band. Do you think that would
work well?
Speaker 2 (15:27):
I know that there's been a lot of these sorts
of inquiries already, and there's a number of experts and
interest groups that have already met and continuing to meet
to chat about this. I think what Act's doing is
trying to appea it's voting base, and they suspect a
lot of the ACT membership agree with the band, or
at least. What this highlights is how complex this issue
(15:50):
is because on one level, a lot of people want
the band, but at the same time it raises issues
like restricting freedom of expression, so it's complex. I do
like the for more research, and I think we need
research from all disciplines, experts in health, experts and media,
experts in psychology, experts in computer science. I think this
is a complex problem that needs to draw from many
(16:12):
different areas of expertise to come up with solutions.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
It's I guess the million dollar question, but like, what
is the answer here? Is there a success story from
anywhere in the world that we could be looking to
follow their leader or anything like that.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
No, I don't believe. So it's far to early days.
I know there are small towns in different parts of
the world. There's maybe some Albans somewhere in the UK
that have no phones for young people, and they're kind
of interesting case studies, but it's generally too early to
be able to give any definitive answer. I don't think
we maybe ever will have a definitive answer. You know,
(16:46):
this isn't something like tobacco or alcohol where you can
actually definitively say through scientific experimentation whether this thing is
good for you or bad for you. It's just too complex,
you know. We use social media for so many different things.
So what I think will happen is we'll see emerging
different approaches and cultures to the topic. Will have more
(17:06):
tech free schools, so parents have the opportunities and the
choice to send their children either to a tech positive
or a tech skeptical school, and other kind of you know,
ways of thinking and using or not using these technologies.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
I don't think this is too is going to go
away for a long time.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
Yeah, Just it's interesting because a lot of people are
saying like, oh, well, it's too late, you know, the
horse has bolted. But it's interesting you're kind of saying
it's actually too early in some ways.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
Right.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Well, I wonder if they're referring to you know, you
can't put social media back in the box because it's out,
and so if you ban it for young people, they're
just going to go somewhere else. And I do largely
agree with that. You know, social media has changed the
way we relate to each other norms. You know, I
talk to students these days and just the expectation around
(17:53):
how available you should be has completely changed. You know,
people generally expect to be available all the time, and
that wasn't the case before social media, before mobile media.
So the norms have changed the things that we take
for granted. So it is really hard to go back
when those kind of things have changed.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Thanks for joining us, Alex.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at inzidherld dot co, dot NZID. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sells. I'm Richard Martin. Subscribe to the
Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts,
and tune in on Monday for another look behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.