42 reasons why a social media ban for teens is a bad idea

In October last year, the current government confirmed plans to introduce a bill to ban social media for children under 16. It followed relentless lobbying by a group of extremely wealthy venture capitalists and self-described "global leaders" (yes, really) to implement a ban.

The red flags were flying in full force, but money always gets you access, so in no time we had a bill heading to Parliament without much thought or care: The National Party's Social Media (Age-Restricted Users) Bill.

A lot of parents are thrilled about it.

This work is free for everyone to read - but it was a lot to put together. If you can, please support the mahi with a paid subscription or donation.

I get it, the knee-jerk response from parents is 'Social Media is Bad'. And I'm not here to say social media is good - or bad.

I need to put a disclaimer here: my kids sort of use social media - in a very limited, supervised way. One of my kids uses WhatsApp. And one of my kids sometimes uses my Instagram account to share info about gigs they're organising or to sell charity t-shirts (with supervision).

One asked to use TikTok and I said no. I said we'd revisit it down the line. And when that time comes, I plan to follow the expert advice is which is: talk with your children, keep an open dialogue, and set limits while using free tools to block as much harmful content as you can.

Is it ideal? No. Is it better than a social media ban? Definitely. And here's my two-sentence reason why:

The social media ban will not work and it is aimed only at collecting data about you and your child and benefiting Big Tech companies while removing the need for corporate regulation.

It will put your child at risk – and it will put all the rest of us at risk too.

So here are:

42 reasons why banning social media for under 16s is monumentally misguided, dangerous and pointless:

In no particular order:

1. The ban doesn't work. About two thirds of Australian 12 to 15-year-olds who used social media before their ban came into force still have access to one or more accounts. About 70 per cent of kids say it was "easy" to get around the ban while over half of them said the ban made no difference to their online safety.
2. You will no longer be able to monitor your kids on social media. If they're banned from social media those kids who previously used it will use apps that are dodgier and you will not be able to use the usual free apps that monitor your child's behaviour online. For example, predators are heading to gaming platforms.
3. Children are at even greater risk from online predators. We've seen so many reports of children not telling their parents in the UK and Australia that they were being groomed because they think they'll go to jail for "breaking the law" if they admit to their parents that they accessed social media when it was banned.
4. Harm will increase. For many young people, their relationships and connections are online; removing those connections can lead to mass isolation, which triggers not just self-harm but harm toward others. Having a sense of belongingness is a huge protective factor against suicide. 
5. We're not ready for the ensuing mental health crisis. Aotearoa is already known for its youth suicide rate. We already have a mental health crisis we cannot handle. Helplines for kids are already overwhelmed and cannot cope with demand. Suicidal, “highly distressed”, disabled and isolated teens have been overwhelming Kids Helpline in Australia after their ban.
6. Bans make "online" unsafe for everyone else. If uploading your passport, photo ID, or credit card online to access social media becomes the norm, we will see more people being scammed as fake websites pop up to fool people into handing over all of their personal information.
7. It's all about data collection. Every heard the old adage: "If you're not paying for the product, you are the product?" That's how it's always been on social media. The reason why so many social media platforms that already collect your data support a ban is that now they can collect even more personal data from you.
8. Privacy? Goodbye! It'll be much harder to use a nickname or fake name on social media and the only way to ensure everyone is over 16 is to force each and every one of us to submit to invasive biometric face scans or digital ID uploads. Doxxing and identity theft become so much easier.
9. This is exactly what the social media platforms want, and they don't care at all about your kids. Social media platforms love these bans because they shift all responsibility for being harmed online onto victims. When the companies enable something terrible - as they do all the time - they can say it's the fault of the child or parent, not them. This is a ploy by social media companies to avoid regulation of their industry and to fob off calls to actually make it safer. All of that can be ignored. People 16 and over will continue to be exploited, extorted, abused, attacked, groomed... meanwhile, misinformation and disinformation and slop will continue to spread. The under-16 ban is a license for social media companies to do nothing and continue to make billions.
10. It encourages our kids to hide what they're doing online. This flies in the face of every bit of educated advice and evidence on how to support kids to be safe online. Kids will continue to be online, they just will do it in less safe ways and they will become more secretive and less likely to trust their parents.
11. Unsafe and unmoderated apps will be used. After social media bans countries have seen increases in downloads for apps that aren't part of the bans and have even less moderation and regulation. These apps have even more ways to 'hide your tracks' that on major platforms. Do you want your kids on the Dark Web? (You do not want your kids on the Dark Web.)
12. Teens will be cut off from mental health supports. Many teenagers and young people use social media tools that support their mental health in the absence of help they can get offline due to cost and access. There are no plans to fill these gaps.
13. It's about censorship. Many lobbyists have openly said they want to see an end to TikTok and other platforms that show the reality of foreign policy - young people who see the war crimes and genocide inflicted on Palestinians by Americans and Israelis are unlikely to support America or Israel. This is a huge problem for the establishment.
14. You don’t suddenly know how to use the internet at 16. Just look at your parents, do they use the internet well? Do they, for example, fall for AI stuff all the time? Do they get scammed? Should they be banned? Why isn't there a plan for after they turn 16?
15. If anything Boomers should be banned. Social media is apocalyptic for Boomers. People over 65 are consuming increasing amounts of extreme far-right content online, they're getting scammed, they're getting sextorted, they're at risk of 'romance scams', phishing and investment scams, and they keep falling for AI. That's not even going into how most of the abuse I get online is from old white men!
16. Bans replace teaching media literacy. And that's a terrible thing. No matter our age, we need to know how to spot misinformation and disinformation. We need to be able to know when a source is fake, know when an image is AI, know when to trust a headline and when not to. Bans take away any obligation to do this to those in power.
17. The ban takes away agency and trust in teenagers. How does a teenager earn their parents' trust? Where do you start off with that conversation if you're coming from a place of condescension to them and patronising them? Why would a teenager try to be responsible for you and earn your trust if there's no incentive to do so?
18. It allows us to ignore offline harms. According to the MP who is pushing the bill it will protect “young people from bullying, inappropriate content and social media addiction". "How?" is a good question. Bullying and seeing inappropriate content isn't just online. It's offline too. And what is "social media addiction?" Shouldn't all of this be evidence-based? Overestimates of social media addiction can disempower people and stop them using common sense.
19. Queer, disabled, and rural teens will become even more isolated. Without access to an online community, these teens will lose their connection with people like them. LGBTQIA+ charity Minus18 surveyed nearly 1,000 queer youth. 91 percent of participants said social media helped them find queer friends and 82 percent believed a social media ban would leave them disconnected.
20. Teens overseas have used VPNs to get around the ban and are now using social media with no trail. Leaving parents in an even worse position for monitoring them. If you thought you'd only just worked out social media wait until you have to work out all of this other crap.
21. It takes the onus away from social media platforms to stop predators and deep fakes and puts it on to parents to manage. Families in Australia have reported "escalating arguments at home increased conflict", with no resources available for parents to navigate highly distressed and suicidal teens.
22. The ban could lead to geo-blocking of New Zealand users entirely. For some smaller platforms - and remember, this bill has a huge catchment, as many if not all online activities can be regarded as "social media" - so it's just safer and cheaper to block the entire country rather than go through the arduous and expensive compliance that age verification requires.
23. Less access to legitimate online sex education puts kids at risk of sexual abuse and violence in the home. The current government is trying to rewrite and remove sexuality and relationships education in the classroom leaving children at risk of sexual violence. Sometimes the internet is the only place they can get information about what domestic violence is and what sexual abuse is. Studies also show comprehensive sex education on puberty, anatomy, contraception, and STI prevention, reduces risk-taking and unprotected sex.
24. There are no third spaces to replace the removal of online spaces. A third space is described as an "informal space outside home and school where people feel most themselves". These places help people connect and create community. There is currently little to no interest from the government in creating free, safe spaces where teenagers can spend time together. That leaves only expensive places, unsafe spaces, school and home.
25. Ineffective monitoring of the ban costs a fortune (and we're in a cost-of-living crisis). Fines are generally for the platforms themselves (though as far as I can tell, no platforms have been fined). But compliance costs a heap of taxpayer money regardless. There isn't even a real guess as to how much compliance costs could be, and that funding is needed for so many other things! Like mental health services!
26. Genuinely, who will monitor this? Who will enforce it? How will they enforce it? How much power will the Minister responsible have? I mean, how have they not even thought of this?
27. It's going to really distress disabled children and neurodivergent children at a time when they're already incredibly distressed. The government's removal of supports for disabled tamariki and adults caused major trauma within the community. They recently said they would be reinstating this support, but many disabled and neurodivergent children and adults became home-bound while they had no supports. This meant they by necessity, made communities online. Now, those communities will be ripped away from them - without acknowledgement that for many immunocompromised and neurodivergent tamariki, in-person meet-ups aren't possible.
28. All just strengthens Big Tech instead of challenging it. Platforms like Meta that can afford compliance (or can afford to sue countries around compliance) will take over smaller social media apps that could be far more responsible and have much better outcomes for young people. Often verification data is stored offshore, and isn't subject to NZ law like the Privacy Act. What's more, they'll be able to collect more of our data, including our face (for face verification), our voice (for voice verification) and our passport and driver IDs - and to link all of that information together in giant databases that might be accessed by nefarious tech companies like Palantir, or the US Government. And they'll get all this from every 16-year-old kid who signs up to use an online service. With even more of our data they become more successful because all of this is sell-able. NZ-based startups could be discouraged from building social tools for our kids under this legislation - leaving the whole space to rot under Meta.
29. 16 is an arbitrary age. Why not 15? Why not 17? There's no evidence that someone is developmentally ready to be thrown into social media at 16 or 17. Two kids one 16 and one 17 may have vastly different ways of using social media and very different understandings of what is safe and what isn't. Yet one is 'allowed' access, and the other isn't. What changes about risk at 17?
30. Kids will share their IDs and use each other's names to get online. This could potentially lead to fraud and identity theft. These kids need our protection from their base instincts to help their friends get access so they can chat about Heartbreak High.
31. None of this is as simple as people want it to be. The relationship between the well-being of young people and their internet usage is nuanced. But you're not going to sell books unless you say it's simple - that this generation is just "anxious," that this is the fault of social media, and please please please don't think too much more about it. Nuance is annoying to some people. But this debate is full of nuance. Some types of online activity (communication, learning, content creation) correlate with higher life satisfaction, while heavy to extreme usage of social media and gaming correlate with lower well-being. They want this to be simple because acknowledging nuance shows a one-size-fits-all approach like a ban won't work.
32. Activists and whistleblowers will be put at risk. With every user having to upload their passport, an image, their driver ID, their government login etc it will be much harder for people who need to be anonymous online. I might like the idea of abusive sock-puppet accounts being exposed, but it would also mean I wouldn't be able to have social media as 'Emily Writes' as Writes isn't my last name. And I'm small fry! What about people speaking truth to power who are much more at risk of abuse?
33. Stalkers, doxxers and harassers will love it. Anyone who has been stalked and so uses a fake name online - or only their first name - will have a much harder time online, as regulations like these encourage children to use their full names from 16 years old.
34. Our specific bill is so broad it could include anything - even email. The Social Media Age-Restricted Users Bill’s definition of social media includes any platform where the primary purpose is to “enable social interactions between 2 or more end-users”. So that's the big five: Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat. But it's also Reddit, Discord, all forums, all support groups, and...email.
35. Young people still have rights, sorry! "The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act guarantees us the right to freedom of expression, the ability to seek, send and receive information, and this applies to people under the age of 16 too. They have the right to communicate with each other, their friends, and their family, and the modern reality is that they use social media to do so." - The NZ Council for Civil Liberties.
36. Seriously though, this is about silencing young people when the world they live in is terrifying and they are rallying against entrenched power. The School Strike 4 Climate and the Make It 16 campaigns were created on social media. Young people care about politics. They should be allowed to use social media to discuss their futures. Social media drives political engagement in young people. And it's even been given as the reason for higher voter turn-out in teenagers and young adults. For instance, let's say you'd made a grotesque amount of money polluting the planet through selling plastic single-use shit that ends up in a landfill – you wouldn't want kids to see the impact of your work, right? You might fund a 'ban under 16s' social media campaign. Hmmmmmm.
37. There's endless funding for a law that won't work but none for education which would definitely help. Teaching critical thinking, not fear-based abstinence is the key for nearly all challenges facing youth, from sex to drug taking to social media. Comprehensive media literacy classes for all is what's needed. If you tell a teenager they can't have sex, they still will. They just might do it in an unsafe way. Social media is no different.
38. Without friends to talk to, kids will talk to "AI" chatbots. The same chatbots that are driving kids to suicide and self-harm and are literally driving them insane.
39. Many of the legislation's biggest supporters will profit from it. According to RNZ, one supporter of the bill "proposes using years of data, including photos, that a child builds up over time through the school system to verify age. [That] company is already working with about a third of New Zealand secondary schools, providing young people with a digital student ID." That's not thoughtful regulation - that's a nightmare cyber-surveillance dystopia!
40. We need digitally literate, resilient, and empowered kids and teens. That won't happen with a social media ban. In fact, it will remove the onus on everyone to educate kids and teens. Without a 'village' approach to helping each other navigate social media, we're basically all doomed. A collaborative family approach that includes expert guidance and support from schools would help to educate everyone.
41. To enforce this ban, every single adult in New Zealand would need to prove their age online. Every time you want to watch something on YouTube - get your government login out. Oh you forgot the password? Use your Driver License. Oh actually they need your passport too. Face ID now. And a thumb print. Full name, age, IRD number. Want to watch (or even just read) something spicy? Time to break out the passport! Are you OK with this? You OK with the next data breach sending all that info to the Dark Web?
42. Finally, this just really isn't about the kids. If it was, young people would have been consulted. They would have been asked - "what can we do to help to keep you safe"? They've not been consulted and they've been treated like they have no voice, like they're stupid, like they have no idea. Is that really how we want to treat the next generation? This is about surveillance. It is a grotesque invasion of the privacy of everyone who uses online services - and that's practically everyone in the country.

To be clear, because I know I'm going to get hate for this: Nobody loathes social media companies or the harms that social media causes more than me. But there are better ways of tackling this.

First of all, it's recognising the harm - to all ages! - caused by a lack of platform regulation and transparency. As long as social media platforms like Meta have no duty of care, everyone, no matter their age, is at risk.

Tax them. Regulate them. Fine them. Make life hard for them. Until they recognise that they have a duty of care to their users. Until they crack down on scams and child sex abuse content. Until there are default safety settings for kids that are easy to use and embedded in the platform.

We can look to Finland and Estonia - they embed critical thinking and digital safety within their school curricula. Digital literacy is taught in Finland from pre-school.

India has a law that is aimed at protecting the privacy and rights of children online. Brazil has done similar, focusing on data protection laws aimed at protecting children.

Education for parents on parental controls would also help a lot. A transparent, democratic, open-source and easy-to-use app from the government to support parents to monitor their child's online activity could also help.

Funds for third spaces, and free activities for Under 16s would see kids spending less time online. And funding for mental health treatment for young people, as well as resilience and support programs in school, would address the root cause for a lot of distress in children and young people.

Oh and if they're "old enough to use social media" they're old enough to vote. Give 16-year-olds the vote already.

The onus to protect users should always be on the social media platforms that profit from making all of us miserable.

Attacking young people instead of the platforms themselves is short-sighted and unjust.

And it simply won't work.

So let's not do it.

Posts like this are a lot of work. If you can, please support the work I do with a paid subscription, a gift subscription, or in another way that works for you:

If you can't do a paid subscription right now, I understand! Instead, please share the post. This means more people see the hard work I do and it makes it all worthwhile.

Share this post about the awful social networks to your social network of choice!