Why a blanket social media ban on children under 16 risks doing more harm than good – Richard Prebble

First, is a ban enforceable?

Second, would a child who bullies classmates suddenly decide to obey an unenforceable age restriction? Will a ban mainly constrain the children who are not the problem?

Third, what benefits might we destroy while trying to prevent harm?

Governments tell us that children must become digitally literate because the future workplace will be dominated by technology and artificial intelligence.

Yet the same governments propose banning children from some of the most important digital platforms.

It is like teaching road safety by banning children from seeing a road.

As my grandson’s caregiver, I share many of the concerns driving calls for a ban.

There are online predators. There is bullying. There is pornography. There are algorithms designed to keep children watching long after they should have gone to bed.

I empathise with parents who feel unable to monitor what their children do online. Last week, my grandson participated in an inter-school coding competition. He could bypass any restriction I installed.

I understand why parents want the Government to act. But I have been a minister. Governments have no special expertise in technology. The bureaucracy has just spent seven years and $33 million building a computer system that does not work.

The Government knows as little about the internet as it does about being a parent.

My grandson’s experience is very different from life in Wellington.

We live at rural Lake Rotomā. There are no children his age nearby.

Without social media, his social world would be much smaller.

He uses it to stay in touch with school friends. One close friend moved to Auckland, another to Australia. His favourite uncle lives in Western Australia.

Through social media, they remain part of his life.

When I was young, moving away meant losing contact.

I grew up in Northcote before the Auckland Harbour Bridge was built. We children walked to each other’s homes and spent hours together. Then my family moved into the city.

I might as well have moved to another country.

The friends I had known disappeared from my life. There was no practical way to keep in touch.

Fifty years later, I met my best friend from Northcote. He had become a doctor at a New York hospital.

We wondered whether if we had been able to keep in contact would we have been lifelong friends?

Social media has also become one of my grandson’s teachers.

He is learning to play the guitar from online videos. He follows golf instruction clips. He watches basketball coaching videos.

Recently, I found him learning waiata from a site that displayed guitar chords as the songs were sung. He was singing in te reo while playing the guitar.

I cannot teach him any of that.

I do not possess a musical bone in my body.

Of course, not everything he watches is educational.

But every generation has watched rubbish.

Adults worried about comic books. Then it was television. Later, it was video games. Today, it is social media.

Some of the concerns were justified but none required a government ban.

We seem to be treating all social media as harmful.

A child learning guitar and talking to friends does not mean they are being exploited by predators or being bullied.

The real problem is harmful content and harmful behaviour.

The solution may be technology itself.

The same technology that can identify copyrighted music within seconds should be capable of identifying bullying, predatory behaviour and other genuinely dangerous content.

Thousands of social media harm lawsuits have been filed against Meta, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube.

To avoid litigation, I believe platforms will use artificial intelligence to identify and remove content that harms children: far more effective than any government ban.

Politicians, however, are drawn to bans.

They cost governments little. They create the impression of decisive action. The children affected cannot vote. The adults who are worried can.

The consequences of a ban will not become known until long after the next election.

Perhaps my grandson is right.

If Parliament passes a ban, many children will click a box declaring they are 16.

The children most affected will be those on the wrong side of the digital divide, who will face yet another barrier.

Social media can harm children.

But for many children, especially those growing up in rural New Zealand, it also helps them learn, communicate and maintain friendships that would otherwise be impossible.

Let us pause. Closing schools damaged a generation. Closing children off from the digital revolution may damage the next.

Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.