When politicians kick the can down the road it is usually an excuse to do nothing. The Government’s decision to ‘review’ proposals to ban social media for under-16 year olds does not fall into that category. It is the right thing to do, but the can needs to be kicked into next year.
The review was precipitated by a private member’s bill sponsored by National MP Catherine Wedd. By her own admission, that bill “closely mirrors the approach taken in Australia”.
The review must include an assessment of the actual consequences of Australia’s recent federal law banning youngsters from the platforms. That law does not come into force until December.
Canberra’s ban has been widely praised but there are numerous questions over how it will be implemented and how effective it will be. The Australians have a trial underway on an Age Check Certification Scheme, which will assess technology to be used to determine whether people are the age they claim to be when accessing social media. It is due to report next month but, as of now, we don’t know whether it will even work.
Nor do we know whether it will have unintended consequences. For example, there is a proposal by Google that would allow users to store copies of their passport or driver’s licence for age verification purposes. Personally, I would retreat into the analogue world of typewriters, pens and letter paper before entrusting social platforms with such precious proof of identity.
That is just one aspect of the ban that has a question mark hanging over it. Another is how the likes of Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg will react to YouTube carving out an exemption for itself when they have not. During the Australian federal election campaign Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he was expecting “major pressure”.
Albanese indicated his government would not buckle to that pressure and the legislation contains stiff penalties for non-compliance. However, another of the unanswered questions is how effective those measures will be.
And what would be the overall effect of the likes of Trump-emboldened American platform operators simply pulling plug on Australian operations? After all, Canada was subjected to a news ban by Meta, and Australia is an even smaller market. Can Australians live without social media? Would it push users toward security suspect TikTok if its Chinese owners opted not to join any boycott?
As I say, Australia attracted widespread international praise for tackling the problem of young people’s use of social media. However, that praise was not universal. Leaving aside 12 year olds who think it is “crazy”, opposition to the ban included an open letter signed by 140 international academics and mental health groups. They argued the ban was too simplistic and that systemic regulation (covering social media across the board) was needed. Human rights advocates claimed it infringed on young people’s rights, including access to information and privacy.
The technical, legal, and social fallout from the law will not be resolved in advance of its implementation. Court challenges, for example, may rely on actual evidence of unacceptable inroads or consequences.
In other words, there is much to play out before the Australian blueprint is proven fit for purpose. It would be folly for this country to “closely mirror” it until that fitness test has been passed.
I don’t much care whether the National Party’s motive in usurping Catherine Wedd’s private member’s bill was to take the credit for attacking a serious social issue, or to simply kick the can down the road when it had ‘more important things’ to worry about. Importantly, our solution will no longer turn on Wedd’s Bill.
The review has been placed in a very competent pair of hands – Education Minister Erica Stanford. She is a better choice than Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith, whose preoccupation with other weighty portfolios has seen media issues placed on a back burner this year.
Her early approach has been encouraging. She told Morning Report last week that New Zealand would be a “fast follower” behind Australia, “a good position to be in because we can go and cherry-pick what is working around the world [and] take a much more nuanced and pragmatic approach perhaps than the Australians”.
At the same time, she acknowledged the importance parents attach to bringing a social scourge to heel: “We have heard from parents, teachers and principals… how important this is and how much feeling there was out there. And, you know, parents know the harm, they see it, and they want us to do something about it. And I’ve always wanted to lead work like this.”
Stanford has stood up to some heavy criticism as Education Minister, much of it placing what are legacy issues on her doorstep. She has demonstrated that she has the ability to handle herself under pressure. She must not allow herself to be pushed into hasty decisions by the pressure of public panic over children’s exposure to damaging social media.
That is not to say the problems are not pressing. I have written in this column about the scourge of social media and in no way minimise the need to do something about it. However, I know there is no fast-firing silver bullet.
What we do to combat the harmful effects of social media needs to be effective, but must not carry with it unintended consequences or trammel other rights by unilaterally redrawing boundaries set by society to balance rights and responsibilities.
That requires deep thinking, drawing on intellect and experience from many jurisdictions. Stanford has indicated her review will adopt such a process as part of a “much more nuanced and pragmatic approach”.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has stated he expects to see a Government Bill become law before the end of the present parliamentary term. He has also expressed hopes of support across Parliament and has received encouraging signals from Labour.
The need to learn from Australia’s experience of its new law will be central to the process and I hope Stanford will set public and political expectations accordingly. She must acknowledge that completion of the review before year’s end is not only an unrealistic expectation but would be foolhardy.
My hope is that the solution will involve not a ban but throwing direct responsibility back on the platforms to put their dark, dank houses in order. I would start by designating them as publishers, directly responsible for all of their content and subject to the same civil law remedies as newspapers and broadcasters. Failure to keep their content within acceptable boundaries should also constitute an offence with fines calibrated in millions of dollars.
Even that would be only a partial answer. Before the review has advanced very far, it will become clear that focussing on a ban on under 16s will not solve a problem that stretches well beyond children. It should also show quite quickly that, even if the large corporate platforms are brought to heel, the problem will not simply disappear.
Almost all of the attention is focussed on group social media platforms but beyond them lies dark social media – the everyday exchange of material by other means such as emails and messaging that is not monitored. Then there is the outlier messaging services such as Telegram that prioritise user privacy and security over strict regulatory compliance, offering features like end-to-end encryption and few-questions-asked membership. And beyond that again lies the Dark Web.
Sovereign jurisdiction – a state’s right to exercise control and authority within its own territory and over its citizens – is ill-equipped to deal with the evils that exist within the digital environment. Ultimately, educating coming generations to recognise and repudiate those evils may be the solution. Perhaps Erica Stanford should bring school curricula into the review.
Bouquets and brickbats
A bouquet to outgoing editor of The Spinoff, Madeleine Chapman, leaving after 10 years with the independent media organisation. She joined shortly after its first birthday and, in the words of founder Duncan Grieve, has worked with and led it through a “crazy, crazy decade”.
Also a bouquet to Stuff for taking a collegial view and ensuring that its publications reported the Voyager Award wins of its rivals as well as its own. Other media were small-minded and earn a brickbat for treating what should be a celebration of journalism as a branding exercise.