Should NZ ban social media for under-16s?

New Zealand’s proposal to restrict social media access for under-16s has reignited a familiar debate: should we ban harmful influences, or should we equip young people to navigate them safely? While the intent behind the ban is understandable: protecting children from harm, the real question is: Will prohibition prepare young New Zealanders for the digital world they will inevitably inherit?

At the heart of this debate is the tension between banning and controlling. History suggests that long-term behavioural change rarely comes from outright prohibition. A more useful comparison than alcohol is financial literacy. We do not protect young people from debt, scams, or financial exploitation by banning access to money. Instead, we accept that money is part of life and invest- albeit imperfectly - in teaching them how to manage it. Social media deserves the same approach. It is not simply entertainment; it is infrastructure shaping communication, employment, identity, politics, and commerce.

Two focal points matter most: parenting and education. Parental guidance plays a critical role in shaping how children engage with social media. Behaviour around screen time, online conduct, and content consumption is learned early, largely at home. Parents who model healthy digital habits, set age-appropriate boundaries, and have open conversations about online risks provide far more protection than any blanket ban. However, many parents themselves feel ill-equipped. Even adults struggle to understand algorithms, data harvesting, AI-driven content, and persuasive design. Expecting parents to guide children without broader societal support is unrealistic.

This is where schools must step in. Digital literacy should be a robust, compulsory part of the New Zealand curriculum, treated with the same seriousness as reading, writing, and numeracy. It should go beyond basic online safety to include how social media platforms make money, how algorithms influence behaviour, how misinformation spreads, and how AI shapes what we see online. Just as importantly, it should address ethics, consent, privacy, and responsible participation. Parenting and education together form the foundations of healthy digital behaviour.

None of this is to deny the very real pitfalls of social media for young users. Cyberbullying, exposure to harmful or age-inappropriate content, addictive design, unrealistic social comparison, privacy breaches, and radicalisation are well documented. There are also longer-term concerns around attention, mental health, and blurred boundaries between public and private life. These risks justify thoughtful intervention.

In that sense, banning social media use at school is a proportionate and practical step. Schools are learning environments, not content marketplaces. Limiting access during school hours reduces distraction, supports focus, and encourages face-to-face interaction. It creates clear boundaries without pretending that social media does not exist outside the school gates.

A nationwide age-based ban, however, risks unintended consequences. In an AI-driven world, digital fluency is no longer optional. Many young New Zealanders enter the workforce at 15 or 16, particularly in trades, retail, hospitality, and creative sectors. Social media is embedded in marketing, customer engagement, and professional networking. Are we comfortable with young people entering work digitally unprepared, with no understanding of how these platforms operate or how to use them responsibly?

If social media is banned outright, children will find ways around it. VPNs, fake accounts, borrowed devices, and unregulated platforms flourish wherever prohibition exists. This pushes usage underground, making it harder to monitor or guide. Children who access content through unethical means are less likely to seek help when things go wrong. Meanwhile, while major platforms may be fined or regulated, shadow platforms operating offshore or anonymously will continue to lurk beyond effective enforcement. How many can realistically be banned, and at what cost?

The keyword here is not control, but monitoring - via parental involvement, platform accountability, and education, allowing adults to guide, intervene, and teach. Control, by contrast, often breeds secrecy and resistance. Teaching children how to think critically about what they see online is far more powerful than attempting to shield them from it entirely.

Protecting young people matters. But so does preparing them. In a digital society, the greater risk may not be early exposure to social media, but raising digitally illiterate netizens who are unprepared for the realities ahead. A ban may feel decisive. Parenting, education, and digital literacy are enduring.