Deceptive Messaging
How Mainstream Media Failed to Accurately Report the Effect of the Proposed Social Media (Age-Restricted Users) Bill
This article was completed in the morning of 11 May 2025. I planned to publish in the middle of this week. At about 5:30 I was advised that the Government was going to formally investigate the Social Media Age Restricted Users Bill as part of the Government’s work programme.
The announcement was made via Radio New Zealand which headlined the story Social media ban for young people to be investigated - Luxon. That sort of headline - describing the proposal as a ban - is what this article is about and I have decided to publish it ahead of the schedule proposed, given that events are moving so quickly in this space,
Introduction
The proposal to enact the Social Media Age Restricted Users Bill was announced on the morning of Tuesday 6 May 2025.
The proposal has attracted the attention of mainstream media (MSM) which has reported what the proponents of the Bill – Ms Catherine Wedd MP and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon – have put forward.
In this article I review the attention and approach of MSM and the way that the proposals have been characterised. My hypothesis is that those who have reported on the matter have not seen the Bill and are therefore parroting the messaging put out by the proponents of the proposal. Alternatively, if those who have reported on the Bill have read it they either have not read it properly or do not understand how it works.
Sources of Information
Every weekday political scientist Bryce Edwards publishes a News Briefing. This is a collection of news articles that have been published in the preceding twenty-four hours. They are ordered by topic and by the issues of the day. The social media proposal was organised under the heading “Social Media Ban”.
I monitored the news briefing for the week following the announcement of the proposal and collated all of the articles that were listed and that were published in MSM. I omitted from consideration blogs and other such publications because my focus was upon how MSM handled the publicity of the proposal.
The collated articles provide the evidential context for what follows.
Methodology
Once all the articles were collected and collated they were ordered by publication, by date and where applicable by time.
Each article was read and the relevant wording in the article about what the proposal amounted to was isolated. I have focussed attention upon the effect of the proposal and how it is articulated and described. In this study that wording will be recorded verbatim. Links to each article will be provided so readers can check and verify the primary source material.
I start with the first report based on publication time. That report as it happens came from the NZ Herald. I then discuss each of the reports from the Herald in chronological order before moving on to the next source
Following the identification of the wording used, the methodology moved on to developing a theme common to the way in which the proposal was treated by MSM.
Following that the wording of the proposed Bill (which is available from the Parliamentary website here https://bills.parliament.nz/v/1/a407c500-5d74-417a-4ebb-08dd8c12305f ) was considered and analysed and the wording in the Bill was compared with the reporting by MSM. The question was whether or not the reporting matched the reality contained in the Bill
I then move on to my conclusions about the way in which MSM has handled the proposal.
The Evidence
The NZ Herald
At 9:36 am on 6 May the Herald website carried a report under this headline:
“National introduces bill to ban social media for under-16s.”
The article went on to state:
“National MP Catherine Wedd is introducing a new member’s bill aiming to ban children under 16 from accessing social media platforms in New Zealand.
Wedd, MP for Tukituki in Hawke’s Bay, said the My Social Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill is about protecting the “most vulnerable young teenagers and children from the online harms of social media”.
The bill would put the onus on social media companies to verify that someone is over the age of 16 before they access social media platforms.”
At 4:33 pm on 6 May the Herald website carried a report under this headline:
“Social media ban: Act blocks National’s bid for Govt consensus on member’s bill”
The article stated:
“Act will not support a National Party member’s bill banning social media for under-16s, killing the Prime Minister’s hope for the bill to be adopted by the Government.”
“When tech billionaires restrict their kids’ social media use, why shouldn’t we? – Editorial”
The article stated in part:
Yesterday, we learned we were finally doing something.
National MP Catherine Wedd said she is introducing a new member’s bill to ban children under 16 from accessing social media platforms in New Zealand.
“Right now, we aren’t managing the risks for our young people well,” the mum of four said.
Wedd said her bill would put the onus on social media companies to verify someone is over the age of 16. It would be in-step with Australia, where the ban is yet to take effect but companies found to be failing to comply could be fined up to A$49.5 million ($53.6m).
A third article appeared in the Herald on 9 May which was from Northland. It is timed at 5:00 am
The headline for this article states:
“Proposed social media ban for under-16s gains support in Northland”
The article contains the following text:
“Educators and people working with youth in Northland say they are fully behind the proposed social media ban for under-16-year-olds.
National MP Catherine Wedd introduced the My Social Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill, which would restrict access to social media for under-16-year-olds.”
The final article in the Herald tranche is an opinion piece sourced from The Conversation.
It was published on 9 May at 5:00 am under the headline:
“The Conversation: 10 reasons why banning social media for New Zealanders under 16 is a bad idea – and will affect adults too”
Part of the article reads:
“Government coalition partners National and Act are at odds over proposed restrictions on social media use by New Zealanders aged 16 and under.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon recently announced a National Party private member’s bill that would require social media companies to verify someone is aged 16 or older. Luxon said social media was not “always a safe place for young people”.
Stuff
The next collection of articles is sourced from Stuff. The first is timed at 2:57 pm on 6 May and contains the following headline:
“Social media harm is ‘like tobacco’: Entrepreneur Cecilia Robinson reveals why she’s leading call for ban for under-16s”
The article states:
“Social media should be treated as a public health harm just like smoking, says the mum and entrepreneur who wants a government ban until kids are 16.”
On 6 May at 4:05 pm, Stuff ran a story under the following headline:
“How would the Government ban social media for Kiwi kids?”
The article goes on to say:
“Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the Government could ban social media for Kiwi kids, following a similar move in Australia.
He made that suggestion on Tuesday, as a National Party MP introduced a private bill to ban social media for children and teenagers aged under 16. As a private bill, this is not Government policy - so it’s unclear if, or when, such a ban would come into force.
The timing is just one complication in a rather complicated proposal. Its announcement raised immediate questions about how the New Zealand government would enforce such a ban - and which companies would be forced to comply.
Wedd said her proposal, called the Social Media Age-Restricted Users Bill, would require social media companies to verify the age of users. Anyone under 16 wouldn’t be able to legally access social media under the proposal.
Social media companies would need to take “reasonable verification measures” to check users’ ages, otherwise New Zealand courts could impose financial penalties on them.
“Look, we’ll be looking at all platforms. Naturally, it will cover traditional platforms - Snapchat, Meta accounts Facebook and Instagram, and TikTok - but further platforms will certainly be explored,” Wedd said.
A draft of the bill defined social media as a platform where “the sole or primary purpose of the platform is to enable online social interaction”.
On 7 May at 6:00 Stuff ran an article that was critical of the proposal.
The headline read:
‘Doomed to fail’ and ‘laughable’ - tech commentators on U-16 social media ban
A link to the Bill was provided.
The article stated:
“National wants under-16s banned from social media. But how will ‘social media’ be defined? How wide will the net be thrown? Will it include YouTube? Whatsapp? Blogs? Chatrooms? Review sites? TradeMe? School education portals? Explainer Editor Lloyd Burr takes a look.
A number of technology commentators say the way it’s worded could mean the entire internet is banned for that age group.
Michael Daubs, a senior lecturer in media, film and communication at the University of Otago says the definition is “too vague to be useful”.
“Basically, you're getting to the point where the internet would be illegal for 16 and unders,” he says. “There's a lot of different ways you could interpret how to allow two end-users to connect”.
“Even if I just have a static, good old fashioned HTML1 webpage and I post something on it, that is in theory going to be communicated to someone else assuming they came to my website to read it.
“So what wouldn't be something that would allow two people to communicate based on that definition?,” Daubs asks.
Tech commentator Peter Griffin says the bill is “doomed to fail” because of unintended consequences like messaging platforms fitting the description of ‘social media’.
“I know lots of families who have WhatsApp groups for the entire family, and that is a good check-in thing without being too intrusive in your kids' life, to say ‘Hey, when are you coming home from school?’ and all those sorts of things. There is a big question mark over that,” he says.
Griffin points out that Australia’s social media ban won’t include messaging apps or even YouTube - which creates its own problem: “YouTube has legitimate educational value but there is some harmful content on there too”.
RadioNZ
RadioNZ carried four stories that were published over the survey period.
The article stated:
“The National Party wants to ban 16-year-olds from accessing social media by forcing companies to use age verification measures, but for now that's not government policy.”
"My Social Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill is about protecting young people from bullying, inappropriate content and social media addiction by restricting access for under 16-year-olds."
The bill would require social media platforms to take "all reasonable steps" to prevent under-16s from creating accounts.
The responsible minister would have the authority to designate specific platforms as age-restricted.” (The emphasis is mine)
The headline read:
“ACT prevented National from pushing forward with under-16 social media ban”
The article contained the following:
The ACT Party has dismissed National's proposal to ban children under 16 from social media, calling it hastily-drafted, simplistic and unworkable.”
The following day (7 May) at 8:20 am, Radio NZ ran a story under the following headline:
“Social media ban: Parents need to step up, not the government - retired judge”
I should at this stage disclose my interest in this particular story. A relevant part of the story states:
National is looking for new friends to support a ban on children under 16 using social media.
The party has put a member's bill into the ballot which could see New Zealand follow in Australia's footsteps.
Regarding controls on gaming sites, Wedd said her bill mirrored what was being proposed in Australia, so it would target platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok and Snapchat.
"These are the traditional platforms where we are seeing kids and we are seeing a lot of the online harm caused by these platforms."
On 7 May at 10:16, RadioNZ ran another story about the proposal under the headline:
“Seymour calls for inquiry into National's proposal to ban social media for under 16s”
The body of the article contains the following:
“The proposed law would require age verification measures on social media platforms.
In a press release she said the proposal to simply ban social media for those under 16 was unlikely to solve the problem.”
Other media outlets that were surveyed contained one story. I have included them in the interests of completeness.
1News
The article stated:
The National Party has introduced a new members' bill to ban social media for those aged under 16.
The article quoted Mr. Luxon’s announcement on Twitter
We want to protect our kids from the harms of social media. That’s why today National has introduced a members bill to ban social media for kids under 16 years old.
The Post
On 6 May the Post published a story under the following headline:
“National Party wants social media ban on under-16s”
The article read:
“Prime Minister Christopher Luxon wants Parliament to legislate for a ban on social media for children and teens under 16 years old, following a similar move in Australia.
Bans on children using social media have been gaining support across the Western world, and there appears concern in New Zealand about its harm to children.”
Spinoff
Spinoff also ran a story on 7 May which was an opinion piece by Cassandra Mudgway, a law lecturer at Canterbury University.
The headline read:
“Banning teens from social media won’t keep them safe. Regulating platforms might”
Ms Mudgway stated:
“A National MP’s proposal to ban under-16s from social media is being pitched as a bold move to protect young people. But the reality is more complicated and far more concerning. If the National Party is serious about addressing the real harms young people face online, banning users is not the solution. Regulating platforms is.
The Social Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill, a proposed member’s bill led by backbencher Catherine Wedd, would require social media platforms to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from creating accounts”
By way of comment Ms Mudgway clearly favours a more heavy-handed approach to the regulation of social media platforms.
The Listener
Co-incidentally enough (if you believe in such things in this spin-doctored climate) the Listener ran an article about the B416 group – lobbyists who have been working towards the Bill.
The article was titled “The high-profile group backing a social media ban for under-16s”
The article is paywalled and does not directly address the Bill. But it does make it clear that B416 was seeking a ban on under-16’s accessing social media.
The Guardian
Finally news of the proposal filtered through the Guardian. On 6 May at 3:56 BST the following headline appeared:
“New Zealand’s prime minister proposes social media ban for under-16s.”
The article went on to state:
“New Zealand’s prime minister has proposed banning children under 16 years old from using social media, in an effort to protect young people from harms such as exposure to violent content and cyberbullying.
Christopher Luxon said on Tuesday the draft law would force social media companies to verify users were at least 16 before allowing them to create an account, or face fines of up to NZ$2m ($1.2m).”
Official Messaging
This is not a Government Bill but a Private Member’s One. There are no official Government statements on the Bill although Catherine Wedd MP posted the following release on the National Party website. Clearly this is intended as a media resource because it contains links to the Bill entitled “Notes to Editors” as well as a summary of key provisions of the Bill.
The release reads as follows:
“National Tukituki MP Catherine Wedd has put forward a new members’ bill to protect young people from social media harm by restricting access for under 16s.
“Social media is an extraordinary resource, but it comes with risks, and right now we aren’t manging the risks for our young people well,” Catherine Wedd says.
“My Social Media Age-Restricted Users Bill is about protecting young people from bullying, inappropriate content and social media addiction by restricting access for under 16-year-olds.
“The bill puts the onus on social media companies to verify that someone is over the age of 16 before they access social media platforms. Currently, there are no legally enforceable age verification measures for social media platforms in New Zealand.
“As a mother of four children I feel very strongly that families and parents should be better supported when it comes to overseeing their children’s online exposure.
“Parents and principals are constantly telling me they struggle to manage access to social media and are worried about the effect it’s having on their children.
“The bill closely mirrors the approach taken in Australia, which passed the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill in December 2024.”
“Other jurisdictions are also taking action. Texas recently passed legislation which bans under 18s from social media use and the UK, the EU and Canada all have similar work in train.
“This bill builds on National’s successful and successful (sic) cell phone ban in schools and reinforces the Government’s commitment to setting our children up for success.”
A video post on Facebook appeared on 6 May featuring the Prime Minister and Catherine Wedd MP. The PM describes the Bill as restricting social media for under 16 year olds (0:13)
However, the National Party YouTube channel headlines a media stand-up as “Members Bill Introduced to BAN SOCIAL MEDIA for Under 16s” and the accompanying text reads as follows:
“We want to protect our kids from the harms of social media.
That’s why today National has introduced a members bill to ban social media for kids under 16 years old.” (My emphasis)
The Common Themes
When one considers the content of the articles, especially the headlines and also the text the first theme that becomes obvious is that what is proposed is a regime that will ban under-16s from accessing social media.
This is a very bald statement, but one that has been carried through in all of the messaging contained in MSM.
In only one article is there any nuanced approach and that is in the RadioNZ article of 6 may which states
The responsible minister would have the authority to designate specific platforms as age-restricted.”
The other theme that becomes apparent is that the “ban” on under-16’s accessing social media will be the responsibility of the social media platforms. They will be required to have an age-verification system in place.
What is interesting is that the Official Messaging is not quite as blunt to describe the proposals as a ban on under-16’s accessing social media. Ms. Wedd’s announcement makes it clear at para 4 that “the onus on social media companies to verify that someone is over the age of 16 before they access social media platforms.”
It would have been helpful if she had provided a little more nuance by saying that the age-verification system was not going to apply to ALL platforms but on those which as designated as age restricted platforms.
But she did not and as a result of that oversight MSM have interpreted the proposal as a ban on accessing social media by under-16s.
That contrasts with the messaging from the National Party YouTube channel which characterises the proposal as a ban on social media for under-16’s.
So what does the proposed Bill say.
What the Bill Says
The Bill does not restrict access to ALL social media platforms. Access will be restricted only to platforms that are designated by the Minister as an age-restricted social media platform. The Bill sets out a number of tests that are required before such designation.
That means that the Bill does not take people under the age of 16 off-line in the sense that they will be unable to access ANY social media platforms.
Unless a platform has been designated and thus requires age-verification, it will be available to <16’s.
Thus it cannot be said that the Bill amounts to a ban on under-16’s accessing social media. It means that access to designated social media platforms will be controlled by means of an age-verification system. If the user’s age cannot be verified as over 16, it will not be possible for that user to create an account with the social media platform.
There are two important clauses in the Bill.
Clause 7 provides that a provider of an age-restricted social media platform must take all reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users from having accounts with their platform.
The wording of the clause is as follows:
“A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must take all reasonable steps to prevent an age-restricted user from being an account-holder with their age-restricted social media platform.”
The key lies in the words “age-restricted social media platform.” An age restricted social media platform is defined in clause 4 as “a social media platform designated by regulations as an age-restricted social media platform”
Thus, the Bill does not apply to ALL social media platforms. It applies ONLY to those that have been designated as age-restricted social media platforms.
The second important clause is clause 14. This clause contains the power to make regulations.
The clause reads as follows:
(1) The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations for all or any of the following purposes:
(a) providing for anything this Act says may or must be provided for by regulations:
(b) designating a social media platform as an age-restricted social media platform:
(c) designating an electronic platform as a social media platform:
(d) specifying an exempt social media platform:
(e) providing for anything incidental that is necessary for carrying out, or giving full effect to, this Act.
Thus a platform is not a social media platform unless it has been designated as such by the Minister. Until the Minister designates it as such, a social media platform is not a social media platform for the purposes of the Bill. It has to be designated as such before the Bill can apply to it.
Secondly once a platform has been designated as a social media platform it may then be designated as an age restricted social media platform. I say that because the language of clause 14(1)(b) requires first that the platform in question be designated as a social media platform.
Subclause (2) provides for the matters that the Minister must take into account when designating a social media platform as an age-restricted social media platform. The language is directive. A social media platform may be designated an age-restricted social media platform only if all the criteria are fulfilled:
Subclause (2) reads as follows:
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) and the Minister may only make regulations under that subsection if—
(a) the Minister is satisfied that it is reasonably necessary to do so in order to minimise harm to age-restricted users; and
(b) the Minister has received advice from the chief executive and has had regard to that advice; and
(c) the Minister has consulted with providers of platforms proposed to be designated as an age-restricted social media platform; and
(d) the Minister has received advice from any other entity that the Minister consider relevant and has had regard to such advice.
I say that all the criteria must be satisfied because the conjunctive “and” is used between 2(a), (b) and (c).
Reconciling the Bill With the Messaging
It is clear that this Bill is not a ban on all under-16’s accessing social media. The news reports make it clear that an age verification system must be put in place by social media platforms that fall within the scope of the Bill.
It is also clear that not all social media platforms fall within the scope of the Bill. Two steps are required before that may happen.
First a platform must be designated as a social media platform (cl. 14(1)(c)).
Secondly that platform must then be designated as an age-restricted social media platform. (cl. 14(1)(b)) All of the tests set out in Cl. 14(2) must receive compliance before that may happen.
Once that has happened the provisions of Clause 7 which require a platform to take all reasonable steps to prevent an age-restricted user from being an account-holder – in other words to deploy some form of age-verification system.
The Bill would only amount to a total ban on under-16’s accessing social media if EVERY social media platform was designated as such for the purposes of the Bill and following that EVERY social media platform was then designated as an age-restricted social media platform.
The headlines describing the Bill as a ban on under-16’s accessing social media are false and misleading and are misrepresentations of what the Bill proposes and intends.
The only explanation for the use of such words is that they allow for dramatic and eye-catching headlines. For readers who go no further than the headlines, the message is that under-16’s will be banned from using social media.
That is not what the Bill provides.
The only source that made any reference to the way in which the proposal would be implemented was a brief comment in the Radio NZ article of 6 May which stated:
The responsible minister would have the authority to designate specific platforms as age-restricted.”
But there was no nuanced discussion of this part of the proposal. There was no considered analysis or description of how that point is reached.
Rather the media commentary by and large has focussed on the proposal that age-verification will be required without any critical analysis of the scope of the Bill beyond the dramatic and patently incorrect headlines.
The messaging from Catherine Vedd MP and the Prime Minister did not go so far as to say that there would be a ban on social media access for under-16’s. But once again there was no careful explanation as to the scope of the Bill and the fact that it would be unlikely to apply to ALL social media platforms.
However, the National Party YouTube channel characterises the proposal as a social media ban for under-16’s.
Conclusions
The following are my conclusions derived from the evidence.
1. The Bill was not read nor reported on in any depth. There seems to be an incomplete understanding of the Bill and its proposals and the fact that the Bill does NOT propose a total ban on social media access by under-16’s. The subtleties of the proposal may well be invisible to the uncritical eye of MSM journalists and editors who seem to prefer a dramatic and misleading headline to reporting what is really proposed.
2. The messaging by the National Party as proponents of the Bill, which exaggerated the effect of the proposal was picked up and reported uncritically by MSM. True, the proposal was not advanced as a ban, but the messaging from Ms. Vedd and the Prime Minister was simplistic and to a degree misleading – focussing on the supposed harms of social media rather than how the Bill would address those harms in any detail. In addition the text to the National Party YouTube channel describes the Bill as a ban.
3. This leads to an inevitable conclusion that where MSM supports a proposal they will uncritically report the proposal without checking the evidence are asking how the proposal would work. In addition, the penchant for a dramatic and eye-catching headline results in a misleading interpretation of what the proposal is about.
4. Once again, by such deficient investigation and reporting MSM has proven itself unreliable and lacking in trustworthiness, supporting the findings of the recent AUT studies about trust and confidence in MSM.
5. Even the most highly rated arms of MSM – such as RNZ – have fallen into the trap of uncritically reporting this proposal. Although to be fair RNZ did “get it right” in a throw-away line which could have done with more verification but they perpetuated the error in the headline referred to at the start of this article. Word limits don’t matter that much in online publications.
6. From a review of the evidence it is reasonable to infer that none of the MSM outlets have read and understood the Bill nor have they asked the right questions of those proposing the Bill
In order for Social Media companies to know the age of any New Zealander attempting to set up an account including school children, every New Zealander would require a Government validated Digital-ID.
Unless the National led coalition Government is using this ’safety’ issue to introduce a trojan horse surveillance state, I can see no rational purpose for its introduction. Parents are responsible for their children’s social media access. Every attempt by the State to act as parent has produced an ocean of unintended consequences with substantial on-going costs to the taxpayer every day.
They should abandon the bill, and Luxon's fulsome support confirms his total lack of any conservative philosophical base. He is demonstrably unsuited to the task which is an ongoing tragedy for New Zealand.
Why are we even surprised any more by this lazy, cynical reporting? The 'who cares' school of journalism. The 'whatever' shrug of filing copy. It damn well does matter, because it smothers the apathy which, as other comments have noted, if this legislation is going to be effective, universal digital photographic government ID will be mandated.