Speaker 1: Kyoder. I'm Richard Martin in for Chelsea Daniels and this
Speaker 1: is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by the
Speaker 1: New Zealand Herald. The National Party is looking to follow
Speaker 1: Australia and ban social media for under sixteens. It has
Speaker 1: submitted a member's bill that would look to limit how
Speaker 1: young people engage with the likes of Instagram, TikTok and Facebook.
Speaker 1: Since Australia's world leading ban was passed into law last year,
Speaker 1: multiple countries are looking at bans as a way of
Speaker 1: addressing concerning social media habits. But is a ban actually
Speaker 1: feasible and would it address the real issues with social
Speaker 1: media today? On the Front Page, Doctor Alex Batty, a
Speaker 1: media lecturer at Victoria University of Wellington, joins us to
Speaker 1: discuss the potential ban and if we should be following
Speaker 1: in Australia's footsteps. Okay, so National and at odds here
Speaker 1: and we'll dig deeper in a moment. But I guess,
Speaker 1: just sort of briefly, what's behind this move from National.
Speaker 2: Well, there's an increasing interest in spending more time offline
Speaker 2: and I think everyone can relate to that. But alongside
Speaker 2: there's also increasing research on the topic of how social
Speaker 2: media affects people, particularly young people, And there was a
Speaker 2: book published a couple of years ago by a professor
Speaker 2: of psychology called Jonathan Hyatt, for The Anxious Generation, and
Speaker 2: my understanding is that book has had a large impact
Speaker 2: on policy both in Australia and here in New Zealand.
Speaker 1: And then, so what is act's main issue with this proposal.
Speaker 2: Well, I can't speak for ACT, but I do understand
Speaker 2: that they have raised some good points around how on
Speaker 2: earth to enforce such a band age. Verification technology is
Speaker 2: quite immature, meaning that they're not that reliable. They use
Speaker 2: a combination of people in putting their users and putting
Speaker 2: their age, but also AI to assess photos and to
Speaker 2: to make a calculation based on how old a user is,
Speaker 2: and there's lots of issues with that. So I think
Speaker 2: just the practicality of the ban is one of the issues.
Speaker 2: And perhaps another issue that X has is maybe freedom
Speaker 2: of expression. By banning social media, you're actually taking away
Speaker 2: young people's tools to express themselves online.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you mentioned some of those verification tools there. Do
Speaker 1: we know at all how this band would actually play out?
Speaker 2: No, we don't, but I know that in Australia, they're
Speaker 2: working quite hard to whip this all out, but there's
Speaker 2: still big question marks on how these technologies will work.
Speaker 2: Academics in Australia criticizing these technologies for not working very
Speaker 2: well or being very easy to work around. And they
Speaker 2: also require buy in from the platforms who will have
Speaker 2: their own opinion about this band and how it will affect
Speaker 2: their business.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because I guess the other thing as well is like, yeah,
Speaker 1: if we're talking about using AI or uploading some sort
Speaker 1: of ID that you know adults are going to have
Speaker 1: to be doing this as well, raises issues around privacy
Speaker 1: and giving too much information, right.
Speaker 2: Yes, I mean we already give so many information to
Speaker 2: these platforms, right we don't think about all the data
Speaker 2: we share and all the insights that we give these platforms.
Speaker 2: But giving a copy of our ad seems like another
Speaker 2: step something that you usually gives your government rather than
Speaker 2: a social media platform that's from another country. So I
Speaker 2: think people are right to really raised some privacy concerns
Speaker 2: about that, particularly for young people.
Speaker 1: To break it down, I guess what actually counts as
Speaker 1: social media because I guess you know you hear that term,
Speaker 1: and especially with the younger generation that your mind goes
Speaker 1: immediately to Instagram and TikTok, and you know, for a
Speaker 1: millennial that's probably more Facebook and things. But I've seen
Speaker 1: some discussion around arguments whether or not YouTube counts as
Speaker 1: this because like they've got YouTube shorts, which is essentially
Speaker 1: a TikTok line, right.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's right.
Speaker 2: I believe the spill is looking at any online platform
Speaker 2: that has an element of social interaction, which arguably is
Speaker 2: even broader than social media. So as you, as you
Speaker 2: rightly pointed out YouTube, you have the ability to comment
Speaker 2: and discuss underneath the video that would come within scope. Interestingly,
Speaker 2: Google lobbies quite hard to get YouTube removed from the
Speaker 2: Australian Band, so it could be interesting to see if
Speaker 2: that happens here, depending on if the bell picks up momentum.
Speaker 3: But look, we're looking at a wide.
Speaker 2: Scope of tools that are within scope, and that's raising
Speaker 2: again feasibility issues.
Speaker 3: You know, is.
Speaker 2: Discords or Twitch or readdits some of these other platforms
Speaker 2: which have different elements of social interaction, less news feed
Speaker 2: and less sort of you know content, maybe groand TikTok,
Speaker 2: but there is a large range, a wide range of
Speaker 2: tools that it's going to be really hard to keep
Speaker 2: on top of.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I saw Chris Hopkins as well mentioned something like Roadblocks,
Speaker 1: which is like a game that has a social chat element.
Speaker 1: I've never played it personally, but yet you know Fortnite
Speaker 1: and things like these, any things where anything where people
Speaker 1: can talk to each other, I guess is muddy, right, Yes, I.
Speaker 2: Mean it's at what point are they try trying to,
Speaker 2: you know, ban the entire Internet, because the Internet is
Speaker 2: social interaction. So you know, I can understand the intent
Speaker 2: behind this bill, but it's just not workable. It's just
Speaker 2: not feasible.
Speaker 1: There's also, like you mentioned something like Redda there, whereas
Speaker 1: you know, on a site like Redder, there's not the
Speaker 1: sort of expectation to be yourself in the same way
Speaker 1: that you know, Facebook and Instagram and like sort of
Speaker 1: traditional social media is that you're representing yourself. So you know,
Speaker 1: when you introduce that element of anonymity, that's a whole
Speaker 1: other issue, right.
Speaker 2: That's right, And I suspect this sort of speaks to
Speaker 2: you know, this bill is designed by people who have
Speaker 2: a very different relationship to the Internet. Gen x's or
Speaker 2: baby boomers. We spend less time online and don't perhaps
Speaker 2: understand these nuances, these differences between a reddit it's and
Speaker 2: an instagram, the role of anonymity, as you were saying,
Speaker 2: they don't quite understand, you know, these these differences, and
Speaker 2: there is quite a generational difference I think on this.
Speaker 1: Topic because at the moment, most sort of social medias
Speaker 1: have in their terms and conditions that you need to
Speaker 1: be thirteen, I believe to create an account. But you know,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned earlier, there are ways around there, and
Speaker 1: that thirteen year old limit comes not from developmental safety,
Speaker 1: but like a legislation in the US against collecting children's data.
Speaker 3: Is that right? Yes, I believe that's true.
Speaker 2: The way in which they manage or govern thirteen's and
Speaker 2: under is through users sharing their age. And then also,
Speaker 2: as I talked about before, using AI to make an assessment,
Speaker 2: if the person actually is older than thirteen, potentially something
Speaker 2: similar would need to happen for this ban, But it's
Speaker 2: very very flimsy, Like do you.
Speaker 1: Think that thirteen is a good age for that sort
Speaker 1: of thing, because I mean, you know, a lot of
Speaker 1: development happens between thirteen and sixteen, So like, is there
Speaker 1: a line that needs to be drawn somewhere? And I guess,
Speaker 1: what's the difference between drawing at thirteen versus drawing it
Speaker 1: at sixteen.
Speaker 2: It's a great question, and I think depending on who
Speaker 2: you ask, you get different answers.
Speaker 3: I work in media and communication.
Speaker 2: So I'm always interested in the kind of more social
Speaker 2: media and communications aspect of these questions.
Speaker 3: If you talk to a psychologists, they'll think about this developmentally.
Speaker 2: What I do think is interesting is these platforms are
Speaker 2: thinking about this right now. I know that Meta has
Speaker 2: developed a special type of account for teenagers for those
Speaker 2: ages between thirteen and sixteen. So they're responding to these
Speaker 2: increasing concerns about how much time young people are spending
Speaker 2: on their platforms, and they're offering a kind of paired
Speaker 2: back version of Satan Instagram and Facebook, whe there's more
Speaker 2: privacy settings, there's sort of nudges to get you off.
Speaker 2: So the platforms themselves are responding to this issue, and
Speaker 2: it will be interesting to see how a public response to.
Speaker 4: Parents are constantly telling us that they're really worried about
Speaker 4: the impact that social media is having on their children,
Speaker 4: and they say they're really struggling to manage access to
Speaker 4: social media. Now I'm here with National MP Catherine wed
Speaker 4: who has launched an incredible bill, a member's bill actually
Speaker 4: to restrict social media for under sixteen year olds.
Speaker 5: That's right, Chris. This bill is about protecting children from
Speaker 5: online harm, including bullying, addiction, and exposure to inappropriate content.
Speaker 5: By restricting social media access for under sixteen year olds,
Speaker 5: it puts the onus on social media companies to verify
Speaker 5: that someone is over the age of sixteen before they
Speaker 5: access social media platforms, and it mirrors the approach taken
Speaker 5: in Australia and follows work in other countries like the UK,
Speaker 5: the EU and Canada.
Speaker 1: Should the onus even really be on the companies to
Speaker 1: be doing these things?
Speaker 3: Do you think? Absolutely?
Speaker 2: I mean, these platforms have become multi billion dollar companies
Speaker 2: in a reasonably short amount of time, and they certainly
Speaker 2: should be responsible for a lot of a lot of
Speaker 2: these kind of alleged arms. I'm against the banning because
Speaker 2: I think it's too simplistic and it doesn't really work.
Speaker 2: But I'm definitely all for more regulation on these platforms
Speaker 2: to create safer spaces, spaces that children young people can use.
Speaker 2: And you know, we could do so much to protect
Speaker 2: children from the algorithms, predatory practices gamification that.
Speaker 3: Also can be quite predatory.
Speaker 2: I think we could do a lot to actually regulate
Speaker 2: these digital spaces like we do with physical spaces.
Speaker 3: You know, we know that there are standards.
Speaker 2: Every time you walk into a building, you know that
Speaker 2: it's a safe place to be right some the same
Speaker 2: digital spaces. It's a bit like the wild West, and
Speaker 2: I think we could give consumers and people confidence that
Speaker 2: these are safer spaces.
Speaker 1: I read in an article you wrote that there's a
Speaker 1: fallacy in calling people addicted to social media. You argue
Speaker 1: that their habitual users. Do you mind just sort of
Speaker 1: explaining what you mean the difference there?
Speaker 2: Sure, well, I think we're all pretty familiar with just
Speaker 2: casually saying I'm so addicted to Instagram, I'm so addicted
Speaker 2: to my phone. What's happened is, you know, the term
Speaker 2: is being so used so broadly, it's at risk of
Speaker 2: losing meaning. You talk to any clinical psychologist or someone
Speaker 2: that works in addiction services. There's a reason why there's
Speaker 2: quite a high standard for addiction. But it's gambling, any alcohol,
Speaker 2: or in this case, you know, digital sort of social
Speaker 2: media or videogome addiction, and one of the requirements has
Speaker 2: to be making some kind of direct negative impact on
Speaker 2: your life. So it's one thing to struggle to put
Speaker 2: your phone down, but until it's actually making a real
Speaker 2: material negative impact on your life, that it doesn't quite
Speaker 2: go into that category of addiction. What a lot of
Speaker 2: people have as a habitual relationship to their phone, so
Speaker 2: you know, using your phone as a habit without thinking.
Speaker 2: Every time you pull out your phone and unlockers or
Speaker 2: start scrolling social media, you know it's working at that
Speaker 2: habitual level. That's not addiction. That's just creating a new habit,
Speaker 2: and it means that you can change that habit, and
Speaker 2: it can be hard. There's lots of good books out
Speaker 2: there that can give you advice, but it's not addiction.
Speaker 3: That's a higher.
Speaker 2: Standard, and if we use it too broadly then it
Speaker 2: kind of undermines the experiences that actually addictive people do have.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously there's no shortage of documentation and commentary
Speaker 1: about are the dangers of spending too much time on
Speaker 1: social media? But there is also some positive aspects right
Speaker 1: that could be taken away from people if this band
Speaker 1: were to go ahead.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: One of my favorite things to do with my students
Speaker 2: is to ask them to temporarily go offline a day,
Speaker 2: forty out hours, thirty two hours whatever a weekend. And
Speaker 2: when you go offline, you become more acutely aware of
Speaker 2: your relationship with your phone, the bad and the good,
Speaker 2: and how we actually use these things for a lot
Speaker 2: of good things, keeping in touch with your grandma on
Speaker 2: the other side of the world, or you know, sort
Speaker 2: of overseas and you're you're keeping touch with or you
Speaker 2: know a number of things. And it's not an easy
Speaker 2: feats to suddenly go offline. It comes with many challenges
Speaker 2: and I think it's a really big ass with young
Speaker 2: people to suddenly tell them to get offline.
Speaker 1: Also, yeah, I saw you mentioned because social media has
Speaker 1: you're able to spread out your experience and you know,
Speaker 1: used to just be calling out into the void. But
Speaker 1: if you're going through something now, and especially you know
Speaker 1: there's kids in like a rural towns that are going
Speaker 1: through something, they now have the ability to like talk
Speaker 1: to other people going through the same thing, where you
Speaker 1: know they used to have to hop on a bus
Speaker 1: to a major city to talk to someone about that.
Speaker 3: Right, that's right.
Speaker 2: I think if you're if you're already fit in in
Speaker 2: your community, then going offline is less of a tough
Speaker 2: task because people like you are in your community. But
Speaker 2: if you're different for whatever reason, if you're you know,
Speaker 2: if you're gay, or if you're from a different ethnicity
Speaker 2: and you stand out, then going offline could be a
Speaker 2: lot harder. Because these online communities that social media provides
Speaker 2: are these only spaces where you can be celebrated.
Speaker 3: For who you are.
Speaker 2: So social media is a crucial place for identity formation,
Speaker 2: and that kind of stuff has not really been talked
Speaker 2: about enough. So it's easy for the kids that already
Speaker 2: fit in to maybe go offline, but less so for
Speaker 2: the others.
Speaker 1: The introduction of this bell sort of feels like a
Speaker 1: next step to what the government introduced last year. The
Speaker 1: Phones Away for the Day policy about banning phones and
Speaker 1: schools a year on from that now was introduced in
Speaker 1: April of last year. How has that gone?
Speaker 3: Do we know? We know a little, but we could
Speaker 3: learn a lot more. So.
Speaker 2: The students that have gone through this high school phone
Speaker 2: band have started university for the first time of this year,
Speaker 2: and I'm about to teach a lot of them and
Speaker 2: I can't wait to do that and put it to
Speaker 2: them and short you know what we tend to do
Speaker 2: in this area as we just to the parents, don't
Speaker 2: talk to the younger people enough.
Speaker 3: There's been I think one survey.
Speaker 2: Researchers have our students about their experiences and during the
Speaker 2: high school phone bank and the responses are mixed. Some
Speaker 2: enjoy the reduction of distractions, while others feel frustrated that
Speaker 2: they can't use their phones during the school breaks and
Speaker 2: think that maybe there's somewhere in the middle that the
Speaker 2: policy should should land. But we could do so much
Speaker 2: more research in the space, and it's research that I'm doing.
Speaker 2: I'm working with my first year university students to give
Speaker 2: them tools to be able to not use their phones
Speaker 2: during lectures at university and we'll see how they're kind
Speaker 2: of learning, experience changes, and whether or not they're able
Speaker 2: to focus more during class.
Speaker 6: But just putting together a band slap dash in the
Speaker 6: middle of a weaker parliament and saying this is a solution,
Speaker 6: it's hard to believe that a solution that simple can
Speaker 6: actually solve a problem this complex. And here's just one
Speaker 6: reason why you're not actually banning kids from the internet,
Speaker 6: you're banning kids from social media companies. There's still a
Speaker 6: million other places on the Internet that can have those problems,
Speaker 6: and actually, you know, if anything, while social media companies
Speaker 6: are banded in some ways at least a relatively controlled
Speaker 6: environment compared with where they can end up in the dark.
Speaker 1: Web, and actors suggested a quality public inquiry into social
Speaker 1: media rather than a band. Do you think that would
Speaker 1: work well?
Speaker 2: I know that there's been a lot of these sorts
Speaker 2: of inquiries already, and there's a number of experts and
Speaker 2: interest groups that have already met and continuing to meet
Speaker 2: to chat about this. I think what Act's doing is
Speaker 2: trying to appea it's voting base, and they suspect a
Speaker 2: lot of the ACT membership agree with the band, or
Speaker 2: at least. What this highlights is how complex this issue
Speaker 2: is because on one level, a lot of people want
Speaker 2: the band, but at the same time it raises issues
Speaker 2: like restricting freedom of expression, so it's complex. I do
Speaker 2: like the for more research, and I think we need
Speaker 2: research from all disciplines, experts in health, experts and media,
Speaker 2: experts in psychology, experts in computer science. I think this
Speaker 2: is a complex problem that needs to draw from many
Speaker 2: different areas of expertise to come up with solutions.
Speaker 1: It's I guess the million dollar question, but like, what
Speaker 1: is the answer here? Is there a success story from
Speaker 1: anywhere in the world that we could be looking to
Speaker 1: follow their leader or anything like that.
Speaker 2: No, I don't believe. So it's far to early days.
Speaker 2: I know there are small towns in different parts of
Speaker 2: the world. There's maybe some Albans somewhere in the UK
Speaker 2: that have no phones for young people, and they're kind
Speaker 2: of interesting case studies, but it's generally too early to
Speaker 2: be able to give any definitive answer. I don't think
Speaker 2: we maybe ever will have a definitive answer. You know,
Speaker 2: this isn't something like tobacco or alcohol where you can
Speaker 2: actually definitively say through scientific experimentation whether this thing is
Speaker 2: good for you or bad for you. It's just too complex,
Speaker 2: you know. We use social media for so many different things.
Speaker 2: So what I think will happen is we'll see emerging
Speaker 2: different approaches and cultures to the topic. Will have more
Speaker 2: tech free schools, so parents have the opportunities and the
Speaker 2: choice to send their children either to a tech positive
Speaker 2: or a tech skeptical school, and other kind of you know,
Speaker 2: ways of thinking and using or not using these technologies.
Speaker 3: I don't think this is too is going to go
Speaker 3: away for a long time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Just it's interesting because a lot of people are
Speaker 1: saying like, oh, well, it's too late, you know, the
Speaker 1: horse has bolted. But it's interesting you're kind of saying
Speaker 1: it's actually too early in some ways.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: Well, I wonder if they're referring to you know, you
Speaker 2: can't put social media back in the box because it's out,
Speaker 2: and so if you ban it for young people, they're
Speaker 2: just going to go somewhere else. And I do largely
Speaker 2: agree with that. You know, social media has changed the
Speaker 2: way we relate to each other norms. You know, I
Speaker 2: talk to students these days and just the expectation around
Speaker 2: how available you should be has completely changed. You know,
Speaker 2: people generally expect to be available all the time, and
Speaker 2: that wasn't the case before social media, before mobile media.
Speaker 2: So the norms have changed the things that we take
Speaker 2: for granted. So it is really hard to go back
Speaker 2: when those kind of things have changed.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us, Alex.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
Speaker 1: can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
Speaker 1: at inzidherld dot co, dot NZID. The Front Page is
Speaker 1: produced by Ethan Sells. I'm Richard Martin. Subscribe to the
Speaker 1: Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts,
Speaker 1: and tune in on Monday for another look behind the headlines.