#socialmedia: Ban the Kids or Regulate the Platforms? Legal Expert Says NZ Has a Rare Chance to Get Online Safety Right

New Zealand has an opportunity to move beyond simply locking under-16s out of social media and instead confront the technology companies, algorithms and platform designs driving online harm, with legal scholar Dr Jennifer Smith warning an age ban risks becoming a symbolic response to a much more complicated problem.

Dr Jennifer Smith from the University of Canterbury, who specialises in technology, regulation and online harms, says the current political debate provides Aotearoa with a rare opportunity to develop meaningful platform accountability.

The warning comes as National advances its Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill, which would require platforms including Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and Facebook to take reasonable steps to prevent children under 16 from holding accounts. Companies failing to meet their obligations could face penalties of up to 10 percent of global revenue.

But Smith says the central policy question should be bigger than simply determining the age at which someone can open an account.

The harm doesn’t disappear at 16

Supporters of the ban point to growing concern about addictive platform design, harmful content, excessive screen time and the impact social media can have on sleep, education and wellbeing.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says around one in three New Zealanders aged 13 to 17 spends at least five hours a day on social media.

But an age threshold does not address many of the underlying features creating those risks.

Algorithms can continue promoting harmful or extreme content.

Platforms can continue designing products around engagement and keeping users online.

Online predators do not disappear.

Cyberbullying does not end.

And a young person does not suddenly become immune to harmful design on their 16th birthday.

For Smith, that strengthens the case for regulation focused on how platforms operate, rather than relying predominantly on restricting who can access them.

Age verification creates another problem

Enforcement is one of the biggest challenges.

National’s legislation would put responsibility on technology companies rather than children or their parents. Age-checking options could include existing account information, formal identification, digital identity services and facial age estimation.

But verifying whether somebody is 15 or 16 potentially means collecting or analysing information from everyone — including adults.

That creates difficult questions around privacy, personal data, facial analysis and digital identification.

There is also the practical reality that rangatahi are often highly capable of navigating technology.

Research examining Australia’s under-16 regime found young participants were actively identifying and exploiting weaknesses in platform access controls, illustrating the difficulty of attempting to solve broader social and governance problems through technological age gates alone.

Coalition divided over National’s plan

The issue has also exposed an extraordinary division within the Coalition.

Both ACT and New Zealand First oppose National’s proposal, despite sitting alongside National in Government.

ACT argues the ban will either be sufficiently intrusive to affect adults or too weak to make a meaningful difference, while New Zealand First has raised concerns about enforcement, digital identification and the Australian experience.

Labour has now moved in the other direction.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins confirmed yesterday that his caucus would support the legislation at first reading, while arguing it requires substantial improvement. Labour technology spokesperson Reuben Davidson has specifically called for greater emphasis on regulation and safety-by-design rather than concentrating overwhelmingly on age restrictions.

That means there is potentially significant cross-party support for stronger online safety regulation — even if politicians disagree over what that regulation should look like.

Put responsibility where the power sits

That broader regulatory approach could fundamentally change the conversation.

Instead of asking only whether a 14-year-old should be permitted on a platform, policymakers could ask whether platforms should be permitted to deploy particular design features to children in the first place.

Should algorithms be allowed to relentlessly recommend harmful material?

Should platforms have stronger duties to detect adults attempting to exploit children?

Should default privacy settings for rangatahi be significantly stronger?

Should companies have to demonstrate that products used by children have been designed with safety built in from the beginning?

And should regulators have sufficient powers to investigate platforms rather than relying on companies to police themselves?

National’s legislation does contain a broader child safety risk-assessment framework and a proposed regulator, meaning the debate does not have to be reduced entirely to the under-16 prohibition.

Rangatahi need a voice too

There is another important issue.

Young people themselves need to be involved in designing the rules.

Rangatahi use social platforms for considerably more than scrolling through videos.

They communicate with friends and whānau, access information, participate in communities, express identity and creativity and sometimes find support that may not be readily available offline.

Removing access therefore carries consequences as well as potential benefits.

Effective online safety policy needs to recognise both realities: social media can cause serious harm, and digital participation can also provide genuine connection and value.

A rare chance to regulate the digital world

For Smith, New Zealand’s opportunity is to avoid mistaking a politically simple solution for a comprehensive one.

There is widespread agreement that children deserve greater protection online.

The harder argument is about how to achieve it.

An under-16 ban provides a clear line politicians can point to.

Platform accountability requires something more difficult — regulating enormously powerful multinational technology companies, scrutinising algorithms, enforcing privacy protections and requiring safety to be built into digital products.

But that may also be where the greater opportunity lies.

The question confronting Aotearoa is not simply whether we can keep every 15-year-old off Instagram or TikTok.

It is whether we can build an online environment where technology companies are legally responsible for making their platforms safer in the first place.

#JenniferSmith #SocialMediaBan #Under16SocialMediaBan #OnlineSafety #OnlineHarms #PlatformAccountability #BigTech #SocialMedia #Rangatahi #Tamariki #ChildSafety #DigitalSafety #Algorithms #AlgorithmicHarm #AgeVerification #DigitalID #Privacy #SafetyByDesign #TechnologyLaw #TechRegulation #CyberSafety #MentalHealth #NationalParty #Labour #NZFirst #ACTParty #ChristopherLuxon #Election2026 #NZPolitics #UniversityOfCanterbury #Aotearoa #MaoriNews #TechnologyNews #WaateaNews #RadioWaatea #WaateaDigital