John MacDonald: You won't get me liking any social media ban

Australia pressed go yesterday on the social media ban for kids under-16 and a Parliamentary select committee here thinks we should do the same. I don’t. Nor does retired district court judge David Harvey, who is saying today that a ban would be a cop-out for parents. He says it would be another example of outsourcing parental authority to the state. He might have a point, but I think a lot of parents are to blame for the problem people seem to be expecting Parliament to fix. Because a lot of parents have been pushovers when it comes to social media. You go anywhere today, and you’ll see the next generation of pushover parents letting their kids on devices anytime, anywhere. I’m anti a ban because I just don’t think it’s practical. I don’t see it working. I know the counterargument to that is that people get around all sorts of laws, so does that mean we shouldn’t have any? Underage kids get their hands on alcohol even though it’s illegal. People on learner licences drive with passengers, even though it’s illegal. I get that, but it’s still not a very good argument for a law that sounds great, but which I don’t see being great in reality. The other reason I’m against a social media ban is that the under-16s who would be impacted have already grown up with social media. It’s ingrained in their lives. It’s a genuine communication tool – schools use it, sports clubs use it. Tell that though to the MPs on Parliament’s Education and Workforce select committee, which has been looking into the idea of a social media ban for under-16s here in New Zealand. The committee’s interim report, its final report will be out early in the new year, its interim view is that we need something like that here. The committee also thinks we would need to have a social media regulator to make sure people and the social media companies follow the rules. Back to retired judge David Harvey, who thinks banning under-16s from social media would be a cop-out for parents. He says: “Supporters of the ban increasingly frame it as a tool for parents – an additional “lever” to help them say “no” to persistent children. That rationale reflects a growing trend: shifting parental responsibility onto the state.” He says: “Telling children ‘the law says no’ is not parenting. It is outsourcing authority.” And I agree.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.