The Government's new members' bill banning social media from under-16s has prompted a mixed response from experts.
Currently there's no legally enforceable age verification measures on New Zealand's online platforms.
New Zealand Initiative's Eric Crampton says it's important for parents to keep an eye on young people's use of social media - but he's not sure if a ban is the way to go.
LISTEN ABOVE
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 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks d Be
follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
We're talking about the proposed social media band for under
sixteens that has been pushed by a national To check
further about this, we're joined by Eric Crampton. He is
part of the New Zealand Initiative, the Chief Economist, and
he wrote about this very topic at the end of
last year. Eric, Very good afternoon to you.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
And to you Eric.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
Is social media problem to under sixteens in New Zealand?
Do we have solid evidence of this?
Speaker 5 (00:41):
The evidence is pretty mixed. So there was a great
piece summarizing the lit in the Chronicle of Higher Education
late last year. There have been strong proponents of the
idea that social media is harmful for kids, predominantly Jonathan Hate.
The evidence is a little more mixed than he has
put up. I consider it sufficient as a parent to
be keeping an eye on things, but I don't think
(01:01):
that it rises to the level of justifying a band.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
Is there any good in social media for kids? Understanding?
I guess that's the other side of it, because we
hear the problems, But is it creating any good in
the community.
Speaker 5 (01:15):
Of course, my children talk to their friends on there
when they also go out to meet with them. They
do plenty of the actual in person interaction, but they
coordinate those through social media accounts. If you consider what's
happed to be social media, and the legislation could allow that,
it also lets them talk to their grandparents. You can
also there are other opportunities.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
That come up.
Speaker 5 (01:37):
It's a speech platform, right, so every speech platform there
is has some mix of good stuff and bad stuff.
There will be communities of kids that can connect with
each other online in way that might be more difficult
face to face because they're say from a mon art
minority group, or have a particular interest that isn't really
prevalent in their own school. They can find others that
(01:58):
are like minded and chat that way, and that can
be beneficial.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
You wrote about the illusion of explanatory depth in this article,
and it's a very good article. People can see it
on the New Zealand Initiative website. But can you explain
that to us and our listeners when it comes to
something like this bill there is It sounds good and
theory sounds good on paper, but there's a lot of
fishooks when you kind of map it all out.
Speaker 5 (02:23):
Sure. So what I was there thinking about was there's
a phenomenon where if people are asked to whether they
understand something, they'll often say, oh, yeah, sure, I understand it.
But then if they're asked, okay, now tell me in
detail how this thing works, things often fall apart, and
then they reassess whether they really understood it. So in
this case, I suppose that you thought that the evidence
(02:44):
rose to the level that the government really should consider this.
In that case, you need to think about, all right,
how could they actually implement this in practice? Now, what
I've come to in thinking about it more since I
wrote that article is that what any system that you
come to that puts the obligation on platforms to keep
kids off of the platforms is going to have to
(03:06):
fail in one of three ways, and you have to
pick which one you're most comfortable with. So you could
set up a system that's pretty easy for kids to
work around, you could set up a system that is
really inconvenient for adult users or users who are over
the age limit. And you could set up a system
that means the effective end of online privacy. So a
(03:28):
lot of people get real value out of having accounts
on Twitter or elsewhere that aren't really linked to their
real name because they're not able, they're not in a
job that allows them to speak freely. They have a pseudonym.
Some people know who they are, most don't. There is
some value in that. It is hard to design a system,
or at least I've seen no way of designing a
(03:49):
system that avoids at least one of those three problems.
And I worry that the legislation that's been proposed in
New Zealand seems to have a mix of all three
happening at the same time. So the obligation will be
on a platform provider to avoid giving accounts to people
who are under the age of sixty. They can rely
(04:12):
on government identification as a way of verifying and if
a kid puts up a fake ID, then that's a
good defense for the platform. So they are not liable
for a two million dollar fine. So what does that
mean in practice? Potentially, then if I'm fifteen and I
have a sixteen year old classmate, my sixteen year old
classmate can verify my account for me using their ID.
(04:35):
There's no prohibition on that. On the there'll be no
penalty for the kid having done that. The platform will
have every reason to store identification indefinitely in case they're
ever challenged on it. So it's the end of online
privacy because all of those could be subpoened. And if
you want to tighten things up so it's harder for
(04:57):
kids to use a friend's ID, you're going to require
something that frequently makes them double check their ID, So
just reverification to make it hard for to find the
same friend again to get it done again. And that'd
be burdensome for adults if it winds up going that
way when people discover that, shock horror, kids have gotten
(05:18):
around the system.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
Yeah. Yeah, I mean kids are incredibly smart. And I
guess the other thing is if they're successfully running a
you know, so they actually do manage to put these
systems in place. The main social media ones, the one
we know, the marquee ones, there's a bunch of underground
social media and completely unregulated places that they could end up.
(05:41):
Do you think that that is a concern that the
unforeseen circumstance would be I'm just picking for chain, you know,
out of thineasia that kids end up in the dark
recesses because that's the only place they're allowed to be.
Speaker 5 (05:54):
That's another real risk that the better you are at
keeping kids off of a platform that they want to
be on because that's where they're able to talk with
their friends, the more reason they have to find another
place where they can talk with their friends, whether that's
the rule blocks chat group or voice chat in a
video game or a weird foreign site that isn't subject
(06:18):
to New Zealand regulation because New Zealand can issue all
the directors at once. But if somebody's based that oversees
it and aren't in a jurisdiction that really cares what
New Zealand thinks, then there's not much to be done
about it. So that is yes, a risk.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Yeah, doctor Crampton, thank you very much for your thoughts
and expertise. Really appreciate it and very interesting, Really appreciate
your time.
Speaker 5 (06:41):
No problem at all, thank you.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
That is doctor Eric Crampton, a chief economist and part
of the New Zealand Initiative. The ACT Party is not
convinced a ban on social media for under sixteens will
work or is the right way to go. ACT Party
leader David Seymour joins us on the show David Good afternoon.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Good afternoon.
Speaker 4 (06:59):
So you've said for every problem there is a solution
that is simple, neat and wrong. Do you see this
in this potential social media band for under sixteens. Yeah?
Speaker 3 (07:08):
I do. It's one of those times when I think
we just need to take a step back. Yes, social
media is a real problem. There's a lot of bullying
online that being online brings up the worst in people
when they interact with each other. There's grotesque content, be
it sexual or violent or whatever. And there's also I
think an incentive for social media companies to make their
(07:30):
algorithms addictive. And there's a lot of literature you read
Jonathan Hate, You, Johann Hari, the people who really think
about this stuff to say it's just serving the way
that kid's minds evolve. All of that's true, But just
putting together a band slap dash in the middle of
a week of Parliament and saying this is your solution,
it's hard to believe that a solution that's simple can
(07:51):
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. And there's still
a million of the places on the Internet that can
have those three problems that I described. And actually, you know,
if anything, while social media companies are bad in some ways,
at least a relatively controlled environment compared with where they
(08:14):
can end up in the dark web.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
How important is online anonymity for free speech? Because anything
that involves prove your age could risk that anonymity.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Well, that's another thing. I mean, if you look at
this band an actual fact, it's really a requirement on
adults to prove their identity before logging in. And you
think about how we're trying to reduce bureaucracy, it doesn't
seem very sensible. But look, here's what I said. We
shouldn't say it's all too hard to wash our hands
of it. We should use the parliament we're paying for, say, look,
(08:47):
you know, take it to a select committee. Have the
social media companies come and put their side of the story.
Speaker 5 (08:53):
Have people like.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Jonathan Hats and Johann Hari, World Exports, zoom in, or
maybe even come here. Hear from your local school principle
about what works. Look at some of the technologies that
some parents are using to monitor and control their own
kid social media use the end of that process, we
might find that together as a country, we can have
a much smarter solution to this problem than slapping on
(09:15):
a band. And if it means we're six months behind Australia,
who are already having lots of trouble with their approach,
then so yes, I would rather judge when we finish
with a good result rather than when we start off
on the road to getting a bad one.
Speaker 4 (09:28):
Do you think it's realistic to just say, look, parents,
you sort it out for your kids. If you think
it's a problem, then spend resources on solving the problem.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
No, I don't. I think our society all together, business,
parents and the government all have a role to play,
just like I say that they all have a role
to play when it comes to school attendance. So the
community owns these problems because we get the impacts when
they go wrong. However, I also believe that we've got
(10:00):
to start being a little bit realistic about the fact
that the government alone cannot do the job of business
and community just by slapping on a ban. If solving
our problems was that simple, we wouldn't have.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Any David, thank you very much for your time. Really
appreciate it that is act party leader David cymore so
the social media band. The proposal is in the biscuit tin,
and if it gets pulled out of that biscuit tin,
I'm sure we'll chat more about that.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
For more from News Talk st B, listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks d Be
follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
We're talking about the proposed social media band for under
sixteens that has been pushed by a national To check
further about this, we're joined by Eric Crampton. He is
part of the New Zealand Initiative, the Chief Economist, and
he wrote about this very topic at the end of
last year. Eric, Very good afternoon to you.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
And to you Eric.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
Is social media problem to under sixteens in New Zealand?
Do we have solid evidence of this?
Speaker 5 (00:41):
The evidence is pretty mixed. So there was a great
piece summarizing the lit in the Chronicle of Higher Education
late last year. There have been strong proponents of the
idea that social media is harmful for kids, predominantly Jonathan Hate.
The evidence is a little more mixed than he has
put up. I consider it sufficient as a parent to
be keeping an eye on things, but I don't think
(01:01):
that it rises to the level of justifying a band.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
Is there any good in social media for kids? Understanding?
I guess that's the other side of it, because we
hear the problems, But is it creating any good in
the community.
Speaker 5 (01:15):
Of course, my children talk to their friends on there
when they also go out to meet with them. They
do plenty of the actual in person interaction, but they
coordinate those through social media accounts. If you consider what's
happed to be social media, and the legislation could allow that,
it also lets them talk to their grandparents. You can
also there are other opportunities.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
That come up.
Speaker 5 (01:37):
It's a speech platform, right, so every speech platform there
is has some mix of good stuff and bad stuff.
There will be communities of kids that can connect with
each other online in way that might be more difficult
face to face because they're say from a mon art
minority group, or have a particular interest that isn't really
prevalent in their own school. They can find others that
(01:58):
are like minded and chat that way, and that can
be beneficial.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
You wrote about the illusion of explanatory depth in this article,
and it's a very good article. People can see it
on the New Zealand Initiative website. But can you explain
that to us and our listeners when it comes to
something like this bill there is It sounds good and
theory sounds good on paper, but there's a lot of
fishooks when you kind of map it all out.
Speaker 5 (02:23):
Sure. So what I was there thinking about was there's
a phenomenon where if people are asked to whether they
understand something, they'll often say, oh, yeah, sure, I understand it.
But then if they're asked, okay, now tell me in
detail how this thing works, things often fall apart, and
then they reassess whether they really understood it. So in
this case, I suppose that you thought that the evidence
(02:44):
rose to the level that the government really should consider this.
In that case, you need to think about, all right,
how could they actually implement this in practice? Now, what
I've come to in thinking about it more since I
wrote that article is that what any system that you
come to that puts the obligation on platforms to keep
kids off of the platforms is going to have to
(03:06):
fail in one of three ways, and you have to
pick which one you're most comfortable with. So you could
set up a system that's pretty easy for kids to
work around, you could set up a system that is
really inconvenient for adult users or users who are over
the age limit. And you could set up a system
that means the effective end of online privacy. So a
(03:28):
lot of people get real value out of having accounts
on Twitter or elsewhere that aren't really linked to their
real name because they're not able, they're not in a
job that allows them to speak freely. They have a pseudonym.
Some people know who they are, most don't. There is
some value in that. It is hard to design a system,
or at least I've seen no way of designing a
(03:49):
system that avoids at least one of those three problems.
And I worry that the legislation that's been proposed in
New Zealand seems to have a mix of all three
happening at the same time. So the obligation will be
on a platform provider to avoid giving accounts to people
who are under the age of sixty. They can rely
(04:12):
on government identification as a way of verifying and if
a kid puts up a fake ID, then that's a
good defense for the platform. So they are not liable
for a two million dollar fine. So what does that
mean in practice? Potentially, then if I'm fifteen and I
have a sixteen year old classmate, my sixteen year old
classmate can verify my account for me using their ID.
(04:35):
There's no prohibition on that. On the there'll be no
penalty for the kid having done that. The platform will
have every reason to store identification indefinitely in case they're
ever challenged on it. So it's the end of online
privacy because all of those could be subpoened. And if
you want to tighten things up so it's harder for
(04:57):
kids to use a friend's ID, you're going to require
something that frequently makes them double check their ID, So
just reverification to make it hard for to find the
same friend again to get it done again. And that'd
be burdensome for adults if it winds up going that
way when people discover that, shock horror, kids have gotten
(05:18):
around the system.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
Yeah. Yeah, I mean kids are incredibly smart. And I
guess the other thing is if they're successfully running a
you know, so they actually do manage to put these
systems in place. The main social media ones, the one
we know, the marquee ones, there's a bunch of underground
social media and completely unregulated places that they could end up.
(05:41):
Do you think that that is a concern that the
unforeseen circumstance would be I'm just picking for chain, you know,
out of thineasia that kids end up in the dark
recesses because that's the only place they're allowed to be.
Speaker 5 (05:54):
That's another real risk that the better you are at
keeping kids off of a platform that they want to
be on because that's where they're able to talk with
their friends, the more reason they have to find another
place where they can talk with their friends, whether that's
the rule blocks chat group or voice chat in a
video game or a weird foreign site that isn't subject
(06:18):
to New Zealand regulation because New Zealand can issue all
the directors at once. But if somebody's based that oversees
it and aren't in a jurisdiction that really cares what
New Zealand thinks, then there's not much to be done
about it. So that is yes, a risk.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Yeah, doctor Crampton, thank you very much for your thoughts
and expertise. Really appreciate it and very interesting, Really appreciate
your time.
Speaker 5 (06:41):
No problem at all, thank you.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
That is doctor Eric Crampton, a chief economist and part
of the New Zealand Initiative. The ACT Party is not
convinced a ban on social media for under sixteens will
work or is the right way to go. ACT Party
leader David Seymour joins us on the show David Good afternoon.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Good afternoon.
Speaker 4 (06:59):
So you've said for every problem there is a solution
that is simple, neat and wrong. Do you see this
in this potential social media band for under sixteens. Yeah?
Speaker 3 (07:08):
I do. It's one of those times when I think
we just need to take a step back. Yes, social
media is a real problem. There's a lot of bullying
online that being online brings up the worst in people
when they interact with each other. There's grotesque content, be
it sexual or violent or whatever. And there's also I
think an incentive for social media companies to make their
(07:30):
algorithms addictive. And there's a lot of literature you read
Jonathan Hate, You, Johann Hari, the people who really think
about this stuff to say it's just serving the way
that kid's minds evolve. All of that's true, But just
putting together a band slap dash in the middle of
a week of Parliament and saying this is your solution,
it's hard to believe that a solution that's simple can
(07:51):
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. And there's still
a million of the places on the Internet that can
have those three problems that I described. And actually, you know,
if anything, while social media companies are bad in some ways,
at least a relatively controlled environment compared with where they
(08:14):
can end up in the dark web.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
How important is online anonymity for free speech? Because anything
that involves prove your age could risk that anonymity.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Well, that's another thing. I mean, if you look at
this band an actual fact, it's really a requirement on
adults to prove their identity before logging in. And you
think about how we're trying to reduce bureaucracy, it doesn't
seem very sensible. But look, here's what I said. We
shouldn't say it's all too hard to wash our hands
of it. We should use the parliament we're paying for, say, look,
(08:47):
you know, take it to a select committee. Have the
social media companies come and put their side of the story.
Speaker 5 (08:53):
Have people like.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Jonathan Hats and Johann Hari, World Exports, zoom in, or
maybe even come here. Hear from your local school principle
about what works. Look at some of the technologies that
some parents are using to monitor and control their own
kid social media use the end of that process, we
might find that together as a country, we can have
a much smarter solution to this problem than slapping on
(09:15):
a band. And if it means we're six months behind Australia,
who are already having lots of trouble with their approach,
then so yes, I would rather judge when we finish
with a good result rather than when we start off
on the road to getting a bad one.
Speaker 4 (09:28):
Do you think it's realistic to just say, look, parents,
you sort it out for your kids. If you think
it's a problem, then spend resources on solving the problem.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
No, I don't. I think our society all together, business,
parents and the government all have a role to play,
just like I say that they all have a role
to play when it comes to school attendance. So the
community owns these problems because we get the impacts when
they go wrong. However, I also believe that we've got
(10:00):
to start being a little bit realistic about the fact
that the government alone cannot do the job of business
and community just by slapping on a ban. If solving
our problems was that simple, we wouldn't have.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Any David, thank you very much for your time. Really
appreciate it that is act party leader David cymore so
the social media band. The proposal is in the biscuit tin,
and if it gets pulled out of that biscuit tin,
I'm sure we'll chat more about that.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
For more from News Talk st B, listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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.