Social media ban for under-16s: Kiwi kids deserve no harm, just no harm reduction – Dr Samantha Marsh

The current minimum age to legally access most social media platforms in New Zealand is 13. This is not because children are developmentally ready for social media at age 13, but because 1998 US legislation prohibits collecting information from children without parental consent.

Thanks to the massive support for such a policy, New Zealand could still be a world leader along with its Australian cousins.

There are some critics here, as in Australia, but their arguments often have notable weaknesses. They tend to support harm reduction techniques rather than focusing on preventive approaches.

Harm reduction is used primarily with adults in the addiction setting. A needle exchange program is an example. Although it does not prevent people from using drugs, it helps reduce the level of harm by preventing the spread of disease.

Similarly, teaching children to seek out and talk to adults after exposure to a predator on the Internet will not prevent them from being harmed by the predator, but it may reduce the impact of that exposure.

Harm reduction focuses on mitigating harm after it has occurred. Parents, teachers, and policy makers should carefully consider these proposed “harm reduction” approaches.

For example, it is argued that the real issue is digital literacy and that we need to teach our children to be good digital citizens.

Being a good digital citizen requires protecting personal information, using common sense, and treating others with respect. However, these do not prevent harm caused by social media.

In just a few hours tiktokYour child may (and likely will) view aggressive and violent behavior, sexually aggressive content, and self-harm videos. Algorithms direct this content to children; They don’t need to look for it.

And these algorithms are extremely powerful for brain development.

Teaching children to be good digital citizens does not prevent harm; but a policy to prevent exposure in the first place can prevent this.

Another argument is that we need to have open discussions with our children and teach them to have healthy relationships with social media. Education is important – children need to know why and how social media causes harm – but education alone is unlikely to change behavior and therefore prevent harm.

Teaching people to eat healthy doesn’t stop them from eating junk food. We should not expect anything different from social media training. Education cannot compete with a platform that exploits the vulnerabilities of the teenage brain.

We should not give children a product that has been shown to harm their health and then expect them to use it responsibly or hold themselves accountable for their use. Just as we do not expect children to form healthy relationships with other addictive products, the same should be true for social media.

The claim that “the horse has bolted” is also a popular argument against policy change. Essentially, this is to say that it is too late to act and all we can do now is damage control.

But for countless children who currently do not have access to social media, the horse is still “in the stable.” We can do something to prevent future harm to these children, and that is partly the purpose of the policy of delaying access to social media; To prevent future generations from being harmed. We must stop thinking that we are powerless in the face of the situation we are in.

Critics also argue that children will find ways to get around the policy change. I accept. They will do it just like they do with e-cigarettes and alcohol.

However, there was no expectation that policies regarding the sale of e-cigarettes and alcohol to minors would be 100% effective. Similarly, there is no such expectation in the proposed change regarding the age of access to social media. These policies are about empowering parents and changing societal expectations and norms. And for many children, these policies will also help prevent harmful product exposure in the first place.

While harm reduction may be appropriate in some settings, we can certainly do better for children; especially when a viable prevention strategy is available, such as delaying social media access.

Delaying access to social media is not just about reducing the harm, it is about preventing it in the first place. This doesn’t mean that delaying access will solve the “problem”; The problem is the negative effects of social media on our children and youth. This is an oversimplification of the intent of the proposed policy. Instead, the policy is about changing the norms and making parents say “no” to their 12-year-olds when they ask for a smartphone.

By focusing on prevention, we prioritize real-world relationships, offline social environments (many of which have been eroded by digital spaces), and opportunities for children to experience joy and connection beyond the screen. By doing this, we can support today’s children in learning that there are other ways to connect and form meaningful relationships.

But if we continue to push the idea that children would be lonely without social media, we are essentially admitting that social media has created a problem that only social media can solve, and there is no way out of it.

Many of us have accepted that we are powerless to create meaningful change. Other countries are now standing up and saying they will no longer be told they are powerless.

New Zealand can do the same. Our children deserve more than harm reduction; They don’t deserve any harm caused by social media. Shouldn’t that be at least what we strive for?