Controlling the Narrative

An Approach to Avoiding Internet Harms

Introduction

On 5 April 2025 Michael Morrah wrote a piece that went out under the headline “Social Media dangers: NZ parents share horror stories at safety seminar”. The story centred on a seminar conducted by Rob Cope (of whom more later) about the ills of the Internet.

The focus sharpened on the account of the problems facing Cambridge Middle School principal Darryl Gibbs, who is also the president of the New Zealand Association of Intermediate Middle Schooling (NZAIMS). He expressed concern at the amount of continual bullying that takes place and that was suffered by his own daughter. The article records:

“I think we have a lot more kids are disclosing that they have thoughts of hurting themselves. I think if they immerse themselves in the social media world, they see images of beautiful people and they think they’re never good enough, and they think that’s their whole life, and so their life never measures up,” he said.

He said he made his own mistakes as a parent after allowing his daughter to download Snapchat as a 13-year-old.

“We naively said, ‘Here’s your phone. Go for it’,” he said.

Gibbs only allowed his daughter, who had just started high school, to be connected to friends but that failed to prevent communications quickly turning toxic.

“It was three weeks before she got her first ‘you should kill yourself’ message,” he said.

“I just think it’s so important parents educate themselves before their children have access to these devices and tools because I work in this world where we learn things and we protect our kids, and I still made mistakes.”

What is important about this narrative is that Mr Gibbs owns the problem and recognises that the mistakes were his. And the important message that he leaves places responsibility with parents – he says “I just think it’s so important parents educate themselves before their children have access to these devices and tools”

The article gave other anecdotal accounts from parents who attended the occasion whose children had suffered online abuse.

There can be no doubt that the opportunities for abuse and cyberbullying have been enhanced with the widespread availability of portable devices such as mobile phones. Barely a day goes by without seeing a child or young person doing damage to their posture as they hunch over the screen and worship at the altar of Apple or Samsung.

And the problems of cyberabuse and cyberbullying are not new. Concern regarding that awful misuse of a communications medium resulted in the enactment of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – a piece of legislation much overlooked in the current narratives about online harm.

So many reports of online abuse arise when parents succumb to the urging of their children to give them a mobile phone. And much of the time this is so that the children can “be like the others” and be part of the online ecosystem that surrounds them.

Like Mr. Gibbs many parents give the phone to the child and leave them to it. And as Mr Gibbs’ case so graphically demonstrates that is the beginning of the problem. No control over phone use. No boundaries set. No effective parenting but rather a child is let loose into the cacophony that is the Internet.

And coupled with that many parents would rather not impose those strictures. They would prefer not to be a parent to their kids but would rather be a friend. And if they develop a “tough” line about phone use they may lose a friend.

Having a friendship relationship with a child may well develop at a later stage. Parenting for a child involves guidance, role modelling, assistance, love, firmness and setting boundaries. Friendship comes later when the child as adult recognises the values of discipline, behavioural moderation, respect and dignity. Friendship is an expression of the gratitude of the child to the parent for providing the environment where those positive aspects of life may flourish.

And another part of the problem is that children seem to be a lot less resilient today than they used to be.

Let’s be realistic about this. Bullying is not new. Badmouthing and insults by children is not new. Insulting comments about clothing and appearance are not new. When I was a kid this was recognised as a fact of life. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

That rubric is discounted today. The mantra is that words hurt. And the problem with the verbal abuse that is cyberbullying is that it is continual. It may start in the playground and is there on the screen of the phone minute after minute, hour after hour, day after day as the cyberbully trolls relentlessly pursue their victim.

Is it the language that is used? Or is it the perpetual nature of the abuse? The problem is that because of a lack of resilience, an inability or unwillingness to turn off the device, a preference not to block the bully that this abuse begins to cause problems.

I have no time for cyberbullying and online abuse especially when it involves children. I had the privilege of assisting the Law Commission in its work that gave rise to a Ministerial Briefing Paper about Online Harms that led to the enactment of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. And even then it was recognised that the problem was a complex one – many facetted with no simple straightforward solution. It is a fact, for example, that for whatever reason kids are not as resilient as they used to be. That in itself is a complex and nuanced issue and there are a number of factors that may contribute to it.

One is that parents today are often more involved in their children’s lives, sometimes to the point of micromanaging. While the intention is safety and support, overprotection can limit kids' ability to solve problems on their own and learn from failure—both of which are core to developing resilience. Curiously enough this micromanaging does not extend to monitoring mobile phones and their use.

Another reason may lie is attitudes to play. Earlier generations of kids spent a lot of time playing outdoors, unsupervised. These experiences naturally taught negotiation, risk-taking, independence, and resilience. Today's kids have less free play and more structured activities, which can reduce those growth opportunities.

Then there are at home responsibilities. In past generations, children were often expected to contribute meaningfully to the household or community at a younger age. That gave them a sense of purpose and agency. Many kids today have fewer responsibilities, which may affect their sense of capability.

Modern education trends may play a part. Some argue that education has become too focused on protecting self-esteem, sometimes avoiding hard truths or failure. While support is good, shielding kids from disappointment or challenge can backfire when real life hits. The trend is exemplified by the approach that in a competition there are no losers. But learning to cope with loss and overcoming it is vital to growth. I swam competitively. I lost more races than I won. But the races that I did win resulted from my determination after a loss to do better. And one of the sweetest wins was at the Inter-secondary School Swimming Sports in 1964 when the Kings team (of which I was Vice-Captain) literally scooped the pool and beat Grammar and in all classes.

And then there is the technology. Technology brings convenience, but it also promotes instant gratification. When answers, entertainment, or validation are always a tap away, patience and perseverance—which are part of resilience—can weaken. Instead of working to remember a fact it is easier to resort to Google. And social media can contribute to anxiety and lower self-esteem, especially in young people. Constant comparison, fear of missing out, and digital bullying can undermine emotional stability and resilience.

So lack of resilience may be one part of the problem. Navigating life and parenting in a high tech world is another. And it is here that the activities of online safety organisation such as Netsafe have a part to play.

Individuals have also taken up the baton. Rob Cope is such an individual.

Rob Cope as Educator

Rob Cope hosted the event referred to in Michael Morrah’s article. Mr. Cope is an educator in online safety. He runs a website at https://ourkidsonline.info which he founded in 2018. He has authored books in the mental health space and has been deeply concerned about the rising rates of anxiety and depression among tweens and teens attributed to a global epidemic of online harms affecting children of all ages.

Mr Cope helps parents and caregivers understand the risks and offers practical safety solutions and guidance on building childrens’ emotional resilience.

Mr Morrah’s article states that Mr Cope’s online safety seminars are peppered with confronting stories ranging from how the consumption of violent pornography had been normalised, to child grooming and sextortion – although Cope reckons his talks detail just “middle of the road” online realities.

The article then goes on to describe some of the risk areas for online activity – probably as applicable to adults as to children.

All of this is good information. True, it continues and amplifies the narrative of the dangers of the Internet and the pervasive use of mobile phones which allow access. And the advice that Mr. Cope gives is good and practical as well.

“.. parents should use filters, have screen time restrictions and never allow their children to be online in private.

“Number one rule, no devices in bedrooms or bathrooms ever. The majority of all harm that will happen to our children will happen in a private space, like the bedroom or the bathroom.”

So up until this point the messaging has been pretty standard – the sort of messaging that comes from a number of online safety advice groups of which Netsafe is the leader. And the emphasis is on parental responsibility to set standards for their children and to monitor their use of the Internet.

But then the narrative changes. Mr Cope is of the view that the Government has a role to play but has so far failed to step up. He has drafted a Child Internet Safety Act for which he is seeking political support.

Before I go any further I should emphasise that Mr. Cope is entitled to express his point of view and he provides a valuable service to the community with his educative programmes with which he seeks to empower parents to assist their children to safely navigate the shoals and dangers of the Internet.

I should also at this stage give credit to Dr. Gavin Ellis who provided me with a link to Mr. Cope’s legislative proposal. Dr. Ellis wrote a swingeing critique of social media entitled “Time to treat social media like a cancer-causing industrial chemical” in which he opens with the salvo:

“Answer me this (a simple yes or no will suffice): If there was a product that had the potential to cause your child serious and demonstrable harm, would you expect the Government to place controls on it?”

My answer to Dr. Ellis is, in the context of social media, no. I acknowledge Dr. Ellis’ critique of social media and the problems it raises. Dr. Ellis considers that State regulation of social media content should not just extend to children but to adults. He is of the view that ISPs should be considered publishers and should not have the “safe harbour” protections afforded by section 24 of the Harmful Digital Communications Act. Dr. Ellis’ article deserves a more detailed critique.

Suffice to say I do not support further restrictions of dialogue by the State in the manner proposed by Mr. Cope. The rest of this article explains why and perhaps explains my response – in part – to Dr. Ellis’ question.

Rob Cope’s Child Internet Safety Proposal

My concern is that Mr Cope is joining a continuing narrative that seeks to control, in whole or in part, Internet services. Whether that narrative gains traction – and every indication has been that it has – is another matter.

Whether that narrative actually results in State action to constrain Internet use has yet to be seen. It has already been made manifest in the enactment of the Harmful Digital Communications Act. There have been other initiatives such as the Safer Online Services and Web Platforms proposals of the Department of Internal Affairs – a proposal that received support from InternetNZ.

Mr Cope’s proposals have two major limbs. The first is to define the responsibilities of Internet Service Providers, public network providers and device manufacturers and retailers. Internet companies would be required to ensure all residential internet connections have built-in child safety technology, and that retailers sell two types of Sim card – one being filtered for those under the age of 18.

Retailers of internet-enabled phones or tablets would also be required to offer devices with built-in filtering for minors, and that parents have a duty of care to monitor a child’s browsing habits and ensure any existing Sim cards are replaced with one that’s filtered.

The second limb, which is not discussed in Mr Morrah’s article, is to define the obligations of parents and guardians together with some rather intrusive State involvement should parents fail to implement reasonable parental controls at home.

The absence of discussion on the second limb means that the article emphasises or is skewed towards the narrative of control of internet service and content providers.

In addition the proposal advocates the establishment of and Online Harm Prevention Unit for Children to oversee enforcement, monitoring and updates to regulations.

The Proposals and Some Observations

I will now note Mr Copes proposals and add my own observations.

The first thing to point out is that the document is a mixture of policy explanations and statutory proposals. Thus there is a mixture of a legislative requirement coupled with an explanation. This is helpful from an explanatory point of view but is not ideal legislative drafting.

The starting point for any examination of proposed legislation is to see the way that terms are defined.

Internet Service Provider is defined as “Any business or entity providing internet access to the public.”

This would include businesses such as Spark and OneNZ along with 2Degrees and any other business which provides a connection to the Internet backbone.

A public network provider is defined as “Any business, institution, or entity providing free or paid public internet access.”

On the face of it there appears to be definitional redundancy but in fact there is not.

Internet Service providers (ISPs) provide a connection to the backbone of the Internet. They offers the transmission, routing, and providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing, allocate an IP address to account holders and their services are not primarily operated to cater for transient users.

A public network provider is best exemplified by a library internet terminal or an Internet café.

It is notable that there is no definition of social media nor an indication of a focus upon social media platforms. In fact, the proposal is far more fundamental than addressing content and goes to the way in which any data comes into a system – be it a home system or otherwise.

The proposal is this:

ISPs must ensure that every residential internet connection is equipped with a router that includes built-in child-safe filtering technology. By default, these routers must provide two simultaneous internet access options: a filtered connection for children and an unfiltered connection for adults.

This ensures that all households have an immediate, built-in ability to protect minors from harmful and illegal online content. Additionally, there must be an option for households that wish to have only filtered internet throughout the home, with no unfiltered access available. This allows families who prioritise a fully protected online environment if they wish.

The first thing to note is that the proposal is limited to residential internet connections. It does not apply to business connections nor to internet cafés who provide access to the general public. That comes later on.

But what is truly breathtaking is the intrusive nature of the proposal in that it applies to residentially based routers – routers that are located within the confines of a private residence. And to have a router so equipped would be mandatory irrespective of the presence of a child.

There is a further assumption underpinning this and that is that the router that is provided has an effective child-safe filtering technology and that this technology exists.

There are other implications that flow from this in the context of the requirements for parental responsibility but I shall deal with that aspect later.

The second part of the proposals for ISPsw relates to the provision of SIM cards which clearly targets mobile phones.

ISPs must provide two distinct types of SIM cards: A filtered SIM card for all minors (under 18). An unfiltered SIM card would be available only to those aged 18 and above, requiring proof of age at purchase.

Thus it would be mandatory for ISPs to provide only filtered SIM cards to those under 18. And if a purchaser were over 18, that person would have to provide proof of age.

This is not so outrageous when one looks at the issue of the sale of liquor. But what we are talking about is a communications device. Furthermore for an under 18 year old (why 18? Why not 16?) we have the State dictating the level of communication that can be undertaken rather than individual families which may have their own values and standards.

Furthermore ISPs have to upgrade and refine filtering technology to block access to illegal content and content that is harmful to minors, including but not limited to, pornography, graphic violence, animal cruelty, gore and exploitative material.

The reason for definitions of ISPs and public network providers is that schools, libraries and businesses are contemplated within that second definition. Thus ISPs are those who provide direct connection to the backbone. PNPs are those who enable internet access for free or for payment.

All public wifi networks accessible by children would have to have mandatory content filtering enabled.

Schools and educational institutions attended by minors would have to ensure that all internet connected devices provided to students are equipped with child-safe browsing settings by default, ensuring a secure and age-appropriate online experience.

Any business, local council, or government entity providing free or paid public internet would have to apply a child-safe browsing filter to their networks to protect minors from illegal and harmful content.

There is a difference between have the capability to filter content and making the filtering of such content mandatory. Mr Cope suggests the latter. This effectively means that a school would be unable to set its own policies regarding Internet access. Filtering would be the default and only setting.

Now it is most likely that a school would ensure that a filtering policy was in place. But the important thing is that the school would make that decision. Mr. Cope’s proposal is that it would be legislatively mandated and compelled.

And what of the library connection. Many adults would access the Internet in a library. Would the filtering of content apply to such users or would they have access to an unfiltered terminal? As the proposal stands the application of a filter would be mandatory irrespective of user.

Then there are proposals for Device Manufacturers and Retailers

Internet enabled devices would have to have mandatory built-in internet filtering for minors which would have to be pre-installed and would be unable to be removed by a purchaser.

Only manufacturers or authorised retailers may disable or adjust these filters under verified conditions to prevent minors from bypassing protective measures, reinforcing a secure digital environment for young users.

The term for getting around blockages in a digital system is to circumvent it – hacking a solution is the vernacular term. As John Gilmore said of censorship "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" and as Charles Clarke suggested "the answer to the machine is in the machine" which suggests that the solutions to problems or challenges related to machines, or the way they function, can be found within the machine itself, rather than relying on external factors or solutions.

Retailers would be required to stock both filtered and unfiltered options for smartphones and tablets. Filtered devices would only be available to purchasers under 18 and sale of unfiltered devices to under-18s would be prohibited. In addition all retailers must stock both 18+ SIM cards and filtered SIM cards for minors (under 18) to ensure consumers in New Zealand have access to both choices.

Then there are the requirements and obligations for parents and guardians.

The proposal is that first relates to monitoring and screen time limits. Parents and guardians have a duty of care to actively monitor their children's online activities, enforce safe browsing habits, and establish healthy screen time limits. They must take proactive measures to ensure a balanced and secure digital environment that promotes both online safety and well-being.

So what is proposed is a legislatively defined duty of care for parents insofar as their monitoring and control of the internet access for their kids is concerned. This duty of care envisages the taking of proactive measures to ensure a balanced and secure digital environment that promotes both online safety and well-being.

This is hopefully what responsible parents would and should do. But there are a myriad ways of doing it. Every family has a different methodology as well as different values and different standards. A State imposed duty of care would cut right across the individuality of family approaches and solutions to problems.

The second part of the proposal relates to safe internet access.

Firstly, parents and guardians have a duty of care to ensure that minors under their care can only access filtered internet. They must actively configure home networks and devices with secure access controls, such as passwords or PINs, to prevent unauthorised access to unfiltered content. This duty includes preventing circumvention of filtering measures and maintaining a safe digital environment at home.

This suggests a reasonable level of technological expertise on the part of parents.

Secondly the proposal is that parents and guardians have a duty of care to ensure that all devices minors have access to, which require a SIM card, including but not limited to mobile phones, smartphones, smartwatches, and tablets are equipped with a filtered SIM. This includes replacing any existing SIM card with the new filtered SIM card to guarantee a safe and secure online experience for children.

There are consequences proposed. Parents who knowingly expose children to illegal and harmful online content through negligence may be subject to counselling orders or civil penalties in extreme cases where harm is proven.

There is something of a conflict here between knowingly doing something and doing something through negligence and that aspect would need to be tidied up – perhaps “knowingly or negligently…” might be preferable.

So what is proposed gathers pace as the proposal develops. We start with a state imposed duty of care about screen time and the monitoring of internet access.

Then the duty of care expands to include a number of other duties like configuring home systems, setting PINs and passwords and ensuring that the kids aren’t trying to circumvent the filters. Good luck with that one. It seems to suggest that parents would have to be coders. As far as kids are concerned the code required to circumvent a filter could be acquired by means of an AI prompt. And yes, that sort of advice is available through AI platforms.

The consequences are truly spooky, intrusive and and invasive one.

Parents who knowingly expose children to illegal and harmful online content through negligence may be subject to counselling orders or civil penalties in extreme cases where harm is proven.

This is an extraordinary proposal which I shall comment upon later.

Parents who fail to implement reasonable parental controls in the home, including ensuring that all SIM-enabled devices used by minors (under 18) have a filtered SIM, may be subject to increased scrutiny or intervention by child welfare agencies.

The surveillance state becomes involved in parenting.

Comment on the Proposals

These proposals on the surface seem to be reasonable but in reality are quite invasive, involving intrusion into the home and which make a number of matters mandatory and which intrude upon parental decisions about bringing up children. Like so many such laws although the motives are admirable the interference with civil liberties, privacy and parental autonomy is quite extreme.

This is an example of where the controlled narrative about the lack of safety in online activity and online harms may end up.

What is particularly uncanny about these proposals is the similarity between the approach adopted by Mr Cope and that of Mr Rogers and his Technology Crimes Reform Bill introduced in 1994. Both mandated technological solutions which were intrusive and invasive.

What differs Mr Cope’s approach from the Safer Online Services proposals is that it is directed not at content but at technologies that might prevent access to content. The question is whether or not society is prepared to allow that level of technological censorship to prevail.

The narrative that supports that outcome is that it will prevent harm to children, but I would have thought that is a responsibility of parents rather than addressing the issue through State-based solutions.

Do we really need the State to make decisions about the content that children can see, given that most of the problems suffered seem to arise from social media. Do we allow the State to intrude upon and define parental responsibility or should we allow parents to apply their many and varied standards to fit within their own family structures.

What is proposed is the inevitable Kiwi solution to any problem – a narrative of which I have been aware all my life – the Government should do something – rather than parents taking personal responsibility, to inform themselves and make decisions about what to do that fit within their own family structures and hierarchies, and then execute and enforce them.

Mr. Cope’s proposals would probably be better cast as advice rather than a State mandated “one size fits all” solution. Clearly a voluntary scheme would be preferable. Filtering technology options, filtered SIM cards, limited ability smartphones should be available for those who want them. Then it would be up to individual families to make the decisions about the extent of internet access available. That is where the responsibility lies.

And the Government understands this. In response to the proposals. Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden won’t introduce age limits for social media like the world-first laws passed in Australia or commit to making it mandatory to have internet filtering at home.

Rather, she is putting the onus on parents.

“I am not considering a law change to ban social media for those under 16 or require certain internet filters in New Zealanders’ private homes. I believe decisions about internet use are best made by parents, as each family is different,”

she told the Herald.

She emphasised that safety improvements had already been made, including increasing the number of blocked web pages to around 30,000 sites.

Conclusion – A Continuing Narrative of Control

So what we have seen is a narrative that has been developing over a number of years. That narrative is about the dangerous nature of the Internet and that it should be regulated and controlled. On occasions that narrative has been translated into action. The most obvious example was the enactment of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015.

The proposals contained in the Safer Online Services discussion paper were another example of action that was stifled with a change of Government. But those proposals are not dead – they do but sleep, awaiting reawakening.

But given that the narrative continues and that the object of the narrative is to assert some form of control about access to Internet based content the suggestions of Mr Cope should not be unexpected.

And rather than addressing specific content such as social media platforms and the like, his is a more nuanced technological solution that goes to the delivery system and either filters or disables access to certain material. From the perspective of the way in which regulation of Internet activity should be approached the suggestion posed by Mr Cope is the correct one if an effective regulatory system is to be put in place. In 1637 Decrees regulating the activities of printers in London targeted the technology of print itself rather than the content that was put out.

So although Mr Cope’s proposal is aligned to a technological solution rather than a content (censorship) based approach the question remains – is this something that should be happening in a free and democratic society.

Or should parents be left with the decisions about what and how their kids should access information online. And in the final analysis doesn’t Mr Cope’s proposal amount to censorship by technology, backed by State enforcement power.

Certainly the narrative of control of the Internet will continue. What I have attempted to do is to examine and identify some of the threads of this narrative and to draw attention to the fact that underneath the controlled narrative lies a deeper level of control of what we can do and see and the information that we may communicate and receive via the most revolutionary means of communication since the invention of the printing press.