1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This submission to the Inquiry into online harms is made by The New Zealand Initiative (the Initiative), a Wellington-based think tank supported primarily by major New Zealand businesses. In combination, our members employ more than 150,000 people.

1.2 The Initiative undertakes research that contributes to the development of sound public policies in New Zealand, and we advocate for the creation of a competitive, open and dynamic economy and a free, prosperous, fair and cohesive society.

1.3 The Initiative’s members span the breadth of the New Zealand economy. The views expressed in this submission are those of the author rather than the New Zealand Initiative’s members.

1.4 This Inquiry has been established in response to concerns regarding youths’ experience with social media and consequent calls for compulsory minimum age requirements for access to social media.

1.5 This submission argues that:

1.5.1 Regulating social media requires defining social media. Doing so is harder than it sounds. Remember that if people enjoy being able to interact with each other, and are prohibited from doing so on one platform, many will shift to the next-best alternative.

1.5.2 Practicable ways of implementing a social media age limit would result in at least one of three undesirable outcomes. Systems may be easily worked around by those under the age limit; they may be cumbersome for users over the age limit; and, they may have pernicious consequences for privacy and for the potential for online pseudonymity.

1.5.3 On balance, one option could have less potential for adverse consequences than other alternatives. Google’s Play store (for Android apps) and the iPhone App Store provide parental control options that rely on the date of birth provided when a child sets up their phone. Installing social media apps could require parental permission for users under the age limit.

1.5.4 If Parliament takes the option presented in 1.5.3, it should do so knowing that many youths will work around the restriction. Their inevitably doing so should not be taken as evidence that tighter restrictions are justifiable. Tighter restrictions have their own adverse effects.