Gore teenagers are at odds over whether a social media ban for people under the age of 16 is needed.
Some who supported the ban said it would allow for more person-to-person contact, and would reduce some of the pressure social media created on young people.
But those who disagreed thought social media was an essential line of communication and removing it could result in isolation.
Last month, the government introduced The Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill, which would order social media companies to disallow people under the age of 16 to access “high risk” social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Tiktok and Snapchat.
The Ensign spoke to 14 young people and it was a 50-50 split on whether the ban was a good idea.
St Peter’s College student Emma Parish, 17, said it was problematic social media focused on “trends,” which pressured young people to act and dress in certain ways.
She said a ban could be effective, even in the long term.
“You’d hope over time, as the ban stays in for longer, they’d find more, better ways to keep it banned,” Emma said.
“It’s not the phones, it’s the people behind them”, Eli said.
“I feel like it’s less of a social media issue . . . it’s more of a social issue.”
Māruawai College student Mason McDowell, 15, said banning young people from social media disconnected them from being informed.
“If you don’t know anything that’s relevant in the world, then you’ve got nothing to relate to.”
Mason said people aged 12 and above were safe accessing social media, as maturity did not start at the age of 16.
Māruawai College student Ashley Lithgow said when struggling, young people found it easier to reach out for help via social media than in person.
St Peter’s College students Rehansa Karunaratne, 15, and Roxanne Dickson,16, believed young people would find a way around the ban and use social media anyway.
The ban would be implemented by the government ordering social media companies to do age checks, which could involve facial age estimation and formal ID, which would restrict access to people recognised as under-16.
Senior lecturer in the media, film and communication programme at the University of Otago Dr Yuki Watanabe said age did not necessarily determine who was mature enough to access social media.
“Getting to the teens, they’re starting to develop their own ego . . . they’re getting to the stage where feeling independent is quite significant.
“Banning is not going to land well in their mind . . . because that’s . . . taking away the[ir] sense of agency.”
Dr Wanatabe said she could support the bill if it was accompanied with significant investment in digital wellbeing education.
If social media giants did not oblige and block platforms from under-16’s, the government would impose a financial penalty — up to 10% of their global revenue.
The ban would be considered by politicians after the upcoming election.
In the year ending July 31, online safety organisation Netsafe received at least 18 reports from of Southlanders under the age of 16.
Two thirds of the submissions, which mostly related to harassment, bullying or intimidation, were lodged by adults on behalf of victims.
In the same period, there were a further 11 reports involving 16- and 17-year-olds in the region and 1256 reports of harm nationally.
The Bill is based on the Australian government’s ban for people under-16, which came into force in in December last year.
Dozens of countries around the world had considered or created legislation which would ban social media for young people.
gemma.sinclair@alliedmedia.co.nz
