Thanks for this article which lays out very clearly the issues existing both on the surface and in the undergrowth of this issue. I hadn't thought about the ulterior motive of states wishing to reduce and thwart the power of the big tech providers, and now I am thinking about it. I liked your analysis of passion vs objectivity too.
I believe the issue is smart phones themselves, said he tapping furiously on one. Restrict the use of those to the under 16s and all of the sophistry and cunning of bad actors exploiting the Internet is thwarted?
Agree. Won't be perfect and maybe Big Tech will find ways around the bans (internet equivalent of vaping...), but it will certainly help the vast majority of kids.
Good Q Brett. I presume for educational purposes; for example kids can learn quite a bit from instructional YouTube videos. Perhaps teachers can introduce them to useful sites...
I also presume schools would monitor teachers to ensure they hadn't employed any perverts, but...??
When the Greens, Act and NZ First agree on something, the country should take notice. Where the middle is often driven by populism (and I do admit that NZF could be painted with the same brush), the objections are based on good reasons, beyond the "won't people think of the children" approach taken by National and Labour.
Submissions to the select committee from those who dealt with children who had experienced harm were strongly in favour of a ban, which is understandable. However, with the exception of one academic from the University of Auckland, the experts on the cause of that harm seemed to be unified in their opposition. As were many of the interest groups who recognised the overwhelming benefit of the internet to children. I saw internet and not social media, as the definitions being used for social media will capture almost all of the internet's most used platforms.
I am surprised that this has gone as far as it has. However, with the public not being aware enough of the bigger picture, and National and Labour looking for populist policies, despite the long-term harm it will cause so many, I probably should have realised it would go this way.
Stanford's comments focus on the behavior of the social media companies. Yet, the approach being taken does nothing to require them to change that behavior. Algorithms aimed at children that only show content from people they follow/friends, and the ability for parents to monitor what their children are watching and interacting with, would allow parents to be parents, provide protection to children, while still not shutting them off from what is the greatest source of knowledge society has ever seen. Instead of requiring the library to remove the harmful content, we're banning children from the library.
It will certainly make it difficult for me to decide who to vote for this November.
Once again very helpful, thank you. Your commercial interests vs societal protection comment is indeed reality, perhaps overly net-liberal folk need to think of social media as smoking. What most sensible folk accept however, is that social media has deliberately coded 'addictive' drivers and as such represents a danger to weaker or more malleable minds. So SOMETHING has to be done because parents are not doing it adequately. Banning the hardware is attractive and far more appealing in terms of slippery slopes. Should work just like smokes, alcohol or Instant Kiwi tickets... Sure, there will be breaches, but play the 80/20 game (which would be more like 95/5 tbh) and our kids will be far better off. Like most things, once the ban is normalised, most kids won't even care and hopefully they will go back to talking to each other like normal humans.
So what will make the social media companies change their behaviour. We would be foolish to ban the library when the need is to remove the harmful content, as Arran points out. If the pressure of government has no effect, why not support Ani O'Brien and ban smartphones for those under 16.
I can get helpful insights from people on reddit without logging-in.
I can while away hours on "x" (twitter) without logging-in.
Sure, being logged-in provides some convenience, allows me to comment or upload myself, but it is certainly not the only thing that "the algorithm" requires to serve-up content. I get that for some people, the comment / post / like / response cycle is what amplifies the "harm", but it is not the only thing. Are they also going to require these tech companies to completely block access for people without an account?
I think it’s the private messaging capabilities that parents are most concerned about, with potential for identifying screenshots and photos to be shared around and young people to be targeted on an individual level by strangers or be unable to disconnect from unhealthy “friends”. Accounts are required for these capabilities.
This is becoming bizarre. A cellphone ban for <16s? So will current owners have to sequester their phones until they reach the age. And, it won’t be possible to get them thru cooperative friends, siblings, parents or vendors ?! And VPNs are an easy out. But my main concern is what is this “social media” thing? If it’s only obscene trashpits like facedik, Xcreta and dicktock , that’s fine. But I can imagine the “we must think of the children” brigade will want feature creep to eventually encompass the whole Internet!
Thanks for this article which lays out very clearly the issues existing both on the surface and in the undergrowth of this issue. I hadn't thought about the ulterior motive of states wishing to reduce and thwart the power of the big tech providers, and now I am thinking about it. I liked your analysis of passion vs objectivity too.
I believe the issue is smart phones themselves, said he tapping furiously on one. Restrict the use of those to the under 16s and all of the sophistry and cunning of bad actors exploiting the Internet is thwarted?
Agree. Won't be perfect and maybe Big Tech will find ways around the bans (internet equivalent of vaping...), but it will certainly help the vast majority of kids.
How do we deal with the schools that have a BYOD policy, Brett?
"Most schools do not single out a strict "tablet-only" mandate; instead, they use flexible BYOD programs allowing laptops, Chromebooks, or tablets"
Why do schools need to use devices?
Good Q Brett. I presume for educational purposes; for example kids can learn quite a bit from instructional YouTube videos. Perhaps teachers can introduce them to useful sites...
I also presume schools would monitor teachers to ensure they hadn't employed any perverts, but...??
When the Greens, Act and NZ First agree on something, the country should take notice. Where the middle is often driven by populism (and I do admit that NZF could be painted with the same brush), the objections are based on good reasons, beyond the "won't people think of the children" approach taken by National and Labour.
Submissions to the select committee from those who dealt with children who had experienced harm were strongly in favour of a ban, which is understandable. However, with the exception of one academic from the University of Auckland, the experts on the cause of that harm seemed to be unified in their opposition. As were many of the interest groups who recognised the overwhelming benefit of the internet to children. I saw internet and not social media, as the definitions being used for social media will capture almost all of the internet's most used platforms.
I am surprised that this has gone as far as it has. However, with the public not being aware enough of the bigger picture, and National and Labour looking for populist policies, despite the long-term harm it will cause so many, I probably should have realised it would go this way.
Stanford's comments focus on the behavior of the social media companies. Yet, the approach being taken does nothing to require them to change that behavior. Algorithms aimed at children that only show content from people they follow/friends, and the ability for parents to monitor what their children are watching and interacting with, would allow parents to be parents, provide protection to children, while still not shutting them off from what is the greatest source of knowledge society has ever seen. Instead of requiring the library to remove the harmful content, we're banning children from the library.
It will certainly make it difficult for me to decide who to vote for this November.
Once again very helpful, thank you. Your commercial interests vs societal protection comment is indeed reality, perhaps overly net-liberal folk need to think of social media as smoking. What most sensible folk accept however, is that social media has deliberately coded 'addictive' drivers and as such represents a danger to weaker or more malleable minds. So SOMETHING has to be done because parents are not doing it adequately. Banning the hardware is attractive and far more appealing in terms of slippery slopes. Should work just like smokes, alcohol or Instant Kiwi tickets... Sure, there will be breaches, but play the 80/20 game (which would be more like 95/5 tbh) and our kids will be far better off. Like most things, once the ban is normalised, most kids won't even care and hopefully they will go back to talking to each other like normal humans.
I admired Erica for her persistence/determination to get the school curriculum reviewed.
But now, I have a different opinion of her, thanks in part to your extremely thorough analysis and description of the issues David.
I really hope she runs out of time to enact anything, as seems possible now that you have shown how short the actual timeline is....
So what will make the social media companies change their behaviour. We would be foolish to ban the library when the need is to remove the harmful content, as Arran points out. If the pressure of government has no effect, why not support Ani O'Brien and ban smartphones for those under 16.
I can browse facebook without logging-in.
I can view youtube videos without logging -in.
I can scroll through tiktok without logging-in.
I can get helpful insights from people on reddit without logging-in.
I can while away hours on "x" (twitter) without logging-in.
Sure, being logged-in provides some convenience, allows me to comment or upload myself, but it is certainly not the only thing that "the algorithm" requires to serve-up content. I get that for some people, the comment / post / like / response cycle is what amplifies the "harm", but it is not the only thing. Are they also going to require these tech companies to completely block access for people without an account?
I think it’s the private messaging capabilities that parents are most concerned about, with potential for identifying screenshots and photos to be shared around and young people to be targeted on an individual level by strangers or be unable to disconnect from unhealthy “friends”. Accounts are required for these capabilities.
This is becoming bizarre. A cellphone ban for <16s? So will current owners have to sequester their phones until they reach the age. And, it won’t be possible to get them thru cooperative friends, siblings, parents or vendors ?! And VPNs are an easy out. But my main concern is what is this “social media” thing? If it’s only obscene trashpits like facedik, Xcreta and dicktock , that’s fine. But I can imagine the “we must think of the children” brigade will want feature creep to eventually encompass the whole Internet!