Social media ban: Government legislation to be introduced, but NZ First, Act disagree | #childpredator | #kidsaftey | #childsaftey | #cybersecurity | #hacker

Several methods could be used to do this, including “using existing account information, facial age estimation, digital ID services, and formal ID”.

Age-restricted platforms are defined by the Government as being internet services accessible in New Zealand which enable users to exchange content with others, and which have one or more specified features. These include “endless-scrolling, algorithmic recommendations, feedback features and time-limited features”.

The legislation will not include services that are primarily used for messaging, email, voice or video calling, reviews, online multiplayer games, music, podcasts, professional networking, or education and health services. Artificial intelligence chatbots are also out of scope.

The age-restricted platforms will need to “provide more than one way for a user to determine their age (preventing them from solely relying on formal ID)” and cannot use “self-declarations to check someone’s age”.

There will also be a need for platforms used by children to regularly assess the risks they post and report on how those risks are being identified and reduced.

An online safety regulator will be established within the Department of Internal Affairs to independently monitor compliance, investigate platforms, and enforce the law.

The regulator will have an array of powers and enforcement abilities, including being able to impose financial penalties based on a percentage of the platform’s global annual revenue. There are criminal penalties for providing deliberately false or misleading information or refusing to provide information.

Luxon said that the Government could not “accept the harm being done to a generation of New Zealand children”.

“One in three children aged between 13 and 17 are now spending at least five hours on social media a day,” the Prime Minister said.

“Social media is exposing them to harmful content, addictive technology and pressures they are not equipped to deal with and it’s affecting their family life, mental health, sleep, and education.

“Obviously, parents have a role to play in monitoring what social media platform their children are on, but so do social media companies. We have protections to keep children safe in the real world and we need them in the virtual world too.”

Stanford said the legislation would bring New Zealand into line with other countries around the world.

“The Bill places legal obligations on platforms. No penalties are proposed for children, their parents or caregivers,” Stanford said.

“It doesn’t just introduce a minimum age requirement. It creates an enduring framework that can evolve alongside technology and holds platforms responsible for understanding and reducing the risks they create for children.”

One of the questions related to the restrictions has been whether the Government would do anything to stop young New Zealanders using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) to circumvent a ban.

VPNs can route an internet user’s traffic through servers overseas, which can allow them to get around location or access restrictions.

In response to an Official Information Act (OIA) request from the Herald, the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) said it had provided advice that refers to the VPNs in the context of how they can be used to circumvent proposed social media age restrictions.

However, DIA confirmed it “has not provided advice on options to restrict, ban or regulate the use of VPNs, nor has it received any direction to develop such advice”.

In a factsheet, the Government said the legislation does not regulate VPNs at all.

“We recognise the risk that some users may attempt to use tools such as VPNs to get around restrictions, and this has been considered in the design of the regime,” it said.

“Platforms can already use tools to help identify when users may be attempting to bypass restrictions by using a VPN and are expected to respond appropriately. Recent evidence from Australia shows that VPN usage by children to get around age restrictions is very low, only 3%.”

An unserious solution to a serious problem – Act

Act leader David Seymour said his party had used its agree-to-disagree provision to vote against the ban.

Seymour said he was concerned about what social media was doing to young people, but that the proposal coming from National was unworkable.

“Teenagers are remarkably good at getting around restrictions on the internet. Any system strong enough to reliably stop them will inevitably start asking a lot more of everybody else,” Seymour said.

“Any Government trying to implement a ban faces two basic choices. They can make it so strong that adults are caught up in it, like France where the Government is going back to the drawing board after their top Court struck the law out. Or, they can make the law so weak that it makes little difference, as Australia has found with nearly all children still on social media as if there is no ban.

“This law follows the Australian model, more of a face-saver for politicians who promised too much than a serious solution. You only have to look at the bill to see it is a call for ‘best efforts’ even concluding it is more about ‘social norms’ than results,” he said.

Bill could lead to ‘Soviet-era’ restrictions – NZ First

NZ First leader Winston Peters took to social media to distance himself from the bill.

“The Government is not moving to ban U16s from social media. The National Party is,” he said.

“New Zealand First understands and agrees with the intent of the law change – no one is more concerned and shares the anxiety that parents are feeling about this issue – but we will not be supporting the progression of legislation to ban social media for under-16s.

“We have communicated our concerns to National over the past year. Our stance has not changed,” he said.

Peters said his party’s concerns were that the bill would become a “slippery slope”.

“The fact is, no matter how laudable the intent is of introducing laws to address this serious issue, there is no method that would fulfil that intent without banning VPNs or the use of digital ID to enforce the law.

“This has been proven with the colossal failure of Australia bringing in similar measures that National want to bring in now,” he said.

Peters said tools of this kind would “lead to a Soviet-era outcome that would be guaranteed to take New Zealanders’ freedoms and privacy away”.

Labour wants more information before decision

On Friday, Labour’s technology and media spokesman Reuben Davidson wrote to Stanford requesting “additional documents and clarification” before Labour could decide whether it would support the bill.

He acknowledged Stanford had allowed Labour a chance to review the bill and two regulatory impact statements, but asked for greater access.

“I do wish to note that having only a single copy of the Bill and RIS documents to share among a number of colleagues created some logistical difficulties in relation to access.

“In an ideal world, we would welcome a further opportunity to review the Bill more thoroughly, and I raise this simply in the spirit of ensuring we are well-placed to give it the consideration it deserves.”

Davidson requested to see further assessments related to the bill concerning its impact on children, privacy, the Treaty and human rights.

Labour has a caucus meeting on Tuesday when it is likely to discuss the bill, although it may not decide whether or not to support it.