Perhaps more surprisingly, Act leader David Seymour told Newshub in June that the idea was worth discussing. “I suspect that the rise in social media and smartphones everywhere has really changed young people’s brains, it’s increased the pressure on them. That’s something that as a society we are now working through,” Seymour said.

But the Act MP at the sharp end of things, Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden, told the Herald earlier today, “A legal age limit for social media is not something I am considering implementing in New Zealand. However, I do understand that extensive social media use can be harmful to our children, that’s why the New Zealand Government has banned school students from using mobile phones while attending school. This gives our kids six hours of the day where they are not accessing social media.”

Netsafe’s take

Netsafe, a non-profit, primarily funded by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Justice, is the lead agency for the Harmful Digital Communication Act 2015 – and as such might seem a natural advocate for a ban.

But Netsafe chief executive Brent Carey says it’s wrong-headed. He sees it as an election-year phenomenon across the Tasman as a “distraction from the real issues”.

Which are?

“Bans can prevent children discussing how they’re using online spaces with the trusted adults in their lives and risks driving any subsequent social media use underground,” Carey says.

“The real question we should be asking is how can we make social media better for children and young people so they have safe, playful, exploratory, fun, entertaining, positive and educational experiences online.”

The Netsafe boss raises practical issues.

“If you’re going to verify age, you’re going to have to do it for the whole population. How do we feel about platforms collecting biometric information? What are the privacy risks?”

By the same token, Carey acknowledges that some websites are now using age-verification tools like Yoti – whose algorithm estimates a person’s age from their face, as caught on their smartphone’s camera and then flags if there’s an apparent disparity with their stated age, or their age of ID they’ve scanned into Yoti’s system. The app shares its estimated age with a website, but not the user’s photo or documents. (And those who’ve had to try to prove their identity to Facebook after an account hijack will realise that involves uploading a passport or other ID document to Meta support – an ironic contrast to how easy it is for spammers and scammers to set up account after account.)

Carey also cautions biometric identifiers like Yoti are emerging technology.

His main issues aren’t around tech, however.

He says a social media ban for under-16s would be inconsistent with other laws.

“At 14, you can be left alone to babysit, or your parents can leave you at home, but you can’t Snapchat with your friends? It just doesn’t make much sense.”

And, more, he says young people aren’t being credited with enough nous. The dark side of the internet can be over-emphasised, and its benefits under-appreciated.

A report released in July by Netsafe and the Classification Office, on young people’s experiences with online content and its impact on body image, highlighted a number of negatives, including misinformation and content promoting unrealistic expectations about what constitutes “attractive” – which is, after all, one of the reasons Netsafe exists.

But chief censor Caroline Flora also said, “Critical thinking and open conversations are key to preventing and addressing harm in this context.” Online content could cause harm but: “We also recognise that there is some good messaging around health and wellbeing online.”

Carey’s concerns are echoed by his opposite number in Australia, eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant, who recently said kids banned from Facebook, TikTok and SnapChat would congregate online via the likes of WhatsApp groups, messaging services like Discord and online gaming forums.

“We don’t want to drive kids underground, where they access social media in secret, without adequate protections in place and without any parental controls, support or supervision,” she said.

Carey said, “In Netsafe’s online harm reports, on average 12.7% feature teenagers as the target of the online harm. So it is understandable that we are concerned about the impacts of online experiences. However, the youth voice has largely been missing from this debate.

“It is vital the views of young people are heard because their experience growing up in a digital age is different to those in positions of power. Positive role modelling by parents rather than strategies based on fear is what they are asking for, and so that is what we are aiming to encourage.”

The research also found that as young people mature, the very platforms they struggled on can become a positive force in their lives, Carey said.

Tips for parents

If an under-16 age limit is off the table, what can parents do if they are worried about their kids on social media?

Carey offers four tips:

Netsafe is launching a new virtual service with an evening parent webinar on September 17. Carey says topics will include how to use the various platform’s reporting tools (if you don’t get any response to a complaint, Netsafe can advocate on your behalf) – 110 parents have already signed up, Carey said. You can register here or by emailing outreach@netsafe.org.nz.

Van Velden said, “I would also encourage families to visit the website Keep It Real Online for resources on managing online issues including the potential harms of social media. The site is managed by the Department of Internal Affairs and contains content for young people, parents, and teachers.

I’d add: Consider a product like Google Nest WiFi Pro that will let you block individual devices in your home (eg laptops, tablets, phones) at set times, or ad hoc. It features hardware points (that also extend your wi-fi to the far reaches of your home) plus a user-friendly smartphone app to wrangle things. But remember your kids could still have mobile data on their phones if they’re blocked from your wi-fi.

And bear in mind that the various filtering services are good at blocking individual websites, but poor-to-ineffective at blocking back behaviour and harmful content within social media platforms, or in the likes of online gaming chat and messaging.

Chris Keall is an Auckland-based member of the Herald’s business team. He joined the Herald in 2018 and is the technology editor and a senior business writer.