45,000 signatures, but what is the solution?

Hi Friend, yesterday the group campaigning for a ban on social media for under-16s delivered 45,000 petition signatures to Parliament. Greeted by MPs and supporters, it was presented as a triumphant moment for youth safety. 

But is it really the win you have been led to believe? 

Yes, 45,000 signatures is an impressive achievement and a clear sign that people want action on the issues young people face online. The debate has never been about whether harms exist. The real question is what we should do about it. 

These 45,000 signatures do not offer a solution. It's more an exercise in preaching to the choir than it is a productive and practical push to protect children online. The people who signed are well intentioned and recognise the challenges social media creates, but good intentions do not make strong laws. In some cases, they even lead to dangerous ones. 

Good policy requires a clear definition of the problem. 

When asked in a recent interview how she defined “harm”, the chair of the B416 group struggled to answer and suggested a broad definition was probably best. That is not good enough. 

If we use the word “harm” to justify major government intrusions into daily life, parenting, and individual privacy, we must be absolutely clear about what we are addressing. 

If subjective harm justifies intrusion today, it will normalise similar intrusions tomorrow for any vaguely defined threat to freedom or privacy. 

Weak definitions create laws that are easy to misuse. Past attempts to protect children online, such as the 2015 HDCA, have already been used to silence political dissent and even enabled foreign interference. We cannot repeat that mistake. 

Friend, alarmism, haste, and moral panic create mass fear, and fear leads people to hand parental and individual autonomy to the state. How much personal responsibility are we prepared to abdicate? Have we not already surrendered enough? 

PILLAR’s voice is cutting through with reason, logic, and principle. The conversation is shifting, slowly but noticeably, and our concerns are being heard. 

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour has repeatedly said a ban is a weak solution. Minister of Education Erica Stanford, who is responsible for reviewing this policy area, has made similar comments in recent day. This is a positive shift. Slow, steady, and subtle, but meaningful. 

Read the full article here.

We have said it many times, Friend, and you know this well. A ban on social media for under-16s means every person aged 16 and over would have to show some form of ID to use social media. This creates serious risks to privacy, increases data vulnerability to breaches, and opens the door to state surveillance. Similar attempts in the EU and the UK have failed, triggered large increases in VPN use, undermined freedom of expression, and created systems that can easily be used to police online speech. 

Parents, communities, and local educators, not the state, must be the first line of defence in supporting young people online. Families are not an optional extra. They are the core of any effective solution. 

Good policy strengthens the ability of parents to guide and protect their children. It does not sideline them in favour of sweeping state interventions. We stand for strong communities and empowered parents, not expanded state control. 

The 45,000 signatures show that people care. But caring is not enough. We need approaches that respect freedom and empower parents without sacrificing their authority, Kiwi’s privacy, or freedom of expression.