New Zealand kind-of moves to ban social media for under-16s, require age checks for new accounts
- Reference: 1746590706
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/05/07/new_zealand_kids_social_ban/
- Source link:
The bill that will enact the ban was put forwarded on Tuesday by member of Parliament Catherine Wedd and is what New Zealand calls a “member’s bill” – a law proposed by an MP that isn’t formally part of the government’s agenda.
Wedd represents the ruling National Party and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon appeared with her in a [1]video during which he endorsed the bill as a fine idea.
For all the good social media provides, it is not always a safe place, and we need to do something about it
On his [2]X account he opined: “We have restrictions to keep our children safe in the physical world, but we don’t have restrictions in the virtual world – and we should.”
“Parents and teachers are constantly telling me they’re worried about the impact social media is having on children – namely through cyber-bullying, inappropriate content, and social media addiction,” Luxon wrote, before adding “It is time New Zealand acknowledged that for all the good social media provides us, it is not always a safe place for our young people to be, and we need to do something about it.”
[3]
New Zealand has already banned use of smartphones in schools, and Luxon cited the “increased student engagement and improved learning outcomes” that followed as proof regulating kids’ access to tech can work.
[4]
[5]
The National Party Luxon leads is conservative, and his post reflects that with the observation “Obviously parents have a role to play in monitoring what social media their children are on”. But he thinks social media companies should do likewise.
“It is time we put the onus on these platforms to protect children from harmful online content,” he wrote.
[6]
The bill proposes requiring social media companies to verify the age of new users, plus penalties of up to NZ$2million ($1.2 million) for getting it wrong.
[7]Membership of New Zealand’s domain registry suddenly triples, which isn't entirely welcome
[8]$16B health dept managed finances with single Excel spreadsheet. It hasn’t gone well
[9]New Zealand minister OKs Kim Dotcom extradition to US
[10]New Zealand to world: China attacked us, too!
But there’s no timetable for the Bill to reach the floor of Parliament because, as a member’s bill, Webb has to advocate for it without party machinery to back her efforts.
It’s therefore not certain the law will make it to a vote, never mind pass, as the National Party helms a coalition government. At least New Zealand’s opposition has expressed interest in the bill.
New Zealand is home to just five million people, so social media players could exile the country without harming their revenues. But the likes of Meta, X, and Google might be moved by the combined populations of New Zealand, Australia and the UK all require age verification – as looks possible as Australia’s recently re-elected government promised to make its proposed [11]age verification scheme a priority, and the UK is pondering a similar initiative. ®
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7325288409667698688/
[2] https://x.com/chrisluxonmp/status/1919663001298149393
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aBsvP57sa6JUvdGChK21JgAAAEI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aBsvP57sa6JUvdGChK21JgAAAEI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aBsvP57sa6JUvdGChK21JgAAAEI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aBsvP57sa6JUvdGChK21JgAAAEI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/01/internetnz_constitution/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/10/nz_health_excel_spreadsheet/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/16/kim_dotcom_us_extradition/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/26/new_zealand_china_attack/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/28/australia_children_social_media_ban/
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Meh
Likewise for heroin, guns, driving cars, alcohol, cigarettes, ...
'Parent', that well known label for a subset of 'Human being' - a creature well known for it's reliable ability to behave in socially responsible and constructive ways without any need for support, guidance, or constraint.
Okay. When are we going to look into how social media harms adults ? Or have we already established that turning 18 flips the immune-to-bullshit switch, so everything magically becomes harmless?
I don't want them banned, but I do want someone to look into this. And to do it properly, not do one study following 16 people for three weeks and then forget about it.
So is your solution to restrict adult access to read social media? Or to make sure only the 'right sort' of people can post or is suitably pre moderated?
Any 'solution' is likely to end up worse than whatever you think the problem is.
Also slightly ironic that this was itself posted on social media, doubtless with full expectation that any study would find all the author's posts perfectly harmless.
OK at age 14 or 16?
Has anyone considered the effects of first allowing children to have smartphones immediately prior to the first important set of exams? Isn't this going to add significant distractions right at a critical point in their education? Earlier and managed or later and unmanaged would be better.
Alternatively just make the person who pays the phone bill legally responsible for all use of the device. As children can't have credit cards, this might make their parents more responsible.
In the Near Future
... at a convenience store near a school, a slightly-greasy-haired male wearing a baseball cap, muscle shirt, and jeans lounges in his clapped-out Honda Civic DX, smoking a cigarette. The driver's-side window is rolled down. As a gaggle of young teens walks past, headed into the store, he calls out in a conversational tone of voice: "Anybody here wanna buy an 'X' account? A hunner't smackers."
Happy side effect
What isn't explicitly mentioned is that in implementing these rules to help the poor vulnerable kiddies, you just happen to require an ID check for *all* users.
Funny how often 'think of the children' turns into a general purpose way of imposing onerous registration rules on the adults. Absolutely no scope for that to be abused!
If getting that data wasn't an underlying aim the proposed rules would be set up differently.
Meh
It’s a parent’s decision.
If parents OK it, then so be it.
Personally, I don’t understand why parents would allow <16s to use social media. But, it’s none of my beeswax.