Stop the Social Media Age Ban (B416) - Support Taitamariki, Don't Restrict Them

Picture this: A New Zealand where taitamariki are digitally literate, resilient, and empowered. Where whānau have the tools and support to guide their kids through online challenges. Where young people can access mental health resources, educational content, and peer support when they need it most. Where rainbow taitamariki can find community and belonging safely online.

That's the world I want my kids to grow up in. B416 takes us in the completely opposite direction.

I've been following the research on this for months, and honestly, I'm frustrated that we're even considering B416 when the evidence is so clear it won't work.

Dr. Pamela Wisniewski at Vanderbilt University is literally the world's leading expert on teen online safety. She's spent years studying thousands of taitamariki and their online experiences. Her research shows that when teens encounter manageable online risks in supportive environments, they actually develop crucial life skills - boundary setting, conflict resolution, digital empathy.

But here's the kicker: her studies of over 2,000 teens found that 45% actively seek connection and support online, while 43% report negative experiences. The reality is nuanced - social media isn't universally good or bad. It's complex, and taitamariki need to learn to navigate that complexity, not be shut out of it entirely.

The most vulnerable taitamariki won't be helped by this ban. Think about it - kids dealing with unsupportive whānau, rainbow taitamariki in conservative households, young people struggling with mental health issues. These are exactly the taitamariki who need online support networks most, and their parents aren't going to enforce restrictions to help them access it.

Meanwhile, determined teens will just lie about their age (like they already do) or migrate to unmoderated platforms where there's actually more risk. We're literally pushing them toward less safe spaces while patting ourselves on the back about "protecting" them.

And let's talk about rainbow taitamariki - Rainbow Youth has warned this could be devastating for LGBTQIA+ young people seeking community and support. For many rainbow teens, online spaces are literally lifelines. B416 could cut that lifeline at the most vulnerable time in their lives.

Here's what really gets me: to enforce this ban, every single person in New Zealand would need to prove their age online. That means government ID verification for your grandmother checking Facebook, for you watching YouTube, for everyone.

The surveillance infrastructure this creates is massive, and when (not if) there's a data breach, everyone's personal information gets exposed. We're talking about creating a system that fundamentally changes how privacy works online for all New Zealanders, just to attempt something that won't even work.

Finland doesn't ban social media. Instead, they invested heavily in comprehensive media literacy education from primary school onward. Result? Finnish young people are among the most digitally resilient in the world, highly resistant to misinformation, and skilled at navigating online challenges.

The Netherlands takes a collaborative approach - parents, schools, and communities working together to support young people online without restrictive measures. Their youth have better digital wellbeing outcomes than countries with punitive approaches.

Academic research consistently shows that empowerment-based approaches work better than restriction-based ones. As legal expert Eric Goldman puts it: "Regulators should deprioritize segregate-and-suppress laws and, instead, develop a wider and more thoughtful toolkit of online child safety measures."

We're about to spend $50+ million enforcing an ineffective ban instead of investing that money in:

It's like choosing to build a wall around a swimming pool instead of teaching kids to swim, then wondering why they drown when they encounter water elsewhere.

This is our moment to choose what kind of country we want to be. Do we want to be the place that leads with evidence-based policy that empowers taitamariki? Or do we want to be the cautionary tale about moral panic overriding research?

International courts have already struck down similar laws as violations of human rights. Australia is considering the same approach and facing massive expert opposition. We have the benefit of seeing these failures elsewhere - let's not repeat them.

When researchers actually ask young people what they want, they don't say "ban us from social media." They say "teach us how to stay safe," "give us better reporting tools," "help our parents understand what we're dealing with online."

Taitamariki themselves are telling us what they need. B416 ignores their voices entirely and treats them like problems to be managed rather than people to be empowered.

This isn't really about social media. It's about whether we trust taitamariki with their own development or whether we think the best way to protect them is to restrict their rights and access to information.

It's about whether we support whānau with tools and education or whether we replace parental guidance with government surveillance.

It's about whether New Zealand leads with evidence and empowerment or follows failed overseas approaches based on fear.

I care about this because I want taitamariki to thrive, not just survive. I want them to develop the skills they need to be safe and successful in an increasingly digital world. I want whānau to be supported, not surveilled.

B416 offers the illusion of safety while actually making taitamariki less safe. We can do so much better than this.