Co-Parenting with the Minister of Education

Right now there seem to be two impulses driving the U16 Social Media Ban Bill.

Education Minister Erica Stanford's interview with Herald Now presenter Ryan Bridge captured this perfectly. 

As a mum with two teenagers, does Stanford personally care about this issue? Clearly. Stanford and Christopher Luxon share the same ambition (and I'm not talking about being prime minister). They care about the kids. 

Vows of "we're going to get this Bill passed or die trying" sound inspirational. The call to action is almost irresistible. And who can argue there isn't a problem?

Kids are being harmed by certain online influences.

Yep, absolutely. Huge problem. What else, Erica?

Big tech companies are heartless, profit-driven juggernauts unwilling to adequately self-regulate. 

OK, sure. Anything else? No one is really disputing the problem.

Well....the truth is, it's really hard for parents to say "no" to kids having social media accounts, so what would really help is if the Government said "no" on their behalf.

Oh? You mean like in the old days when Dad would stand behind Mum and back her up when she was telling us off....

Of course it's easy to dismiss the kind of predicament "jellyfish parents" find themselves in these days. While I think the U16 Bill is not only daft, but also very dangerous, I don't for a moment assume that parents who can't say "no" don't care about their kids.

They often care a great deal. It's just they've made the modern parenting mistake of thinking that a kid's reactions ought to guide a parent's decisions. 

Unfortunately, the U16 Bill in this respect captures the great mantra of our modern world. I'm not the one to blame. I as a parent can buy my child a smartphone, do virtually no research on what the dangers might be or whether any protections could be put in place, then let my child run free in social media land before I eventually complain that someone else needs to do something about the problem I've actively facilitated in the first place.

So, we've established that as a parent if I act alone in trying to remove a smart phone from my kid's hands that would be bordering on insanity.

But if I push the government to pass a law that I can then point to when I need moral authority to tell my kids the thing I'm presently too scared to tell them, that would be entirely sensible. 

Like in the horror movies, it just goes to show that if we move together as a group we stand a better chance of not being picked off by the little monsters we call our kids. 

Let's briefly also address the second impulse behind the Bill:

Internet regulation as the final goal.

Why champion a social media ban? Why not seek to reduce child poverty instead? The last Labour government claimed it was a top priority then got into power and promptly forgot about it. If National really wanted to prove itself, and is prepared to work with any party in order to put kids first as Stanford and Luxon keep emphasising, wouldn't child poverty reduction engender greater cross party support and have a more profound impact on the country if successful? 

Well, the logic is fairly straightforward. If politicians like Stanford think the government is needed to mediate parent-child relationships in the online world, then it's only logical that the government should then mediate all other relationships in the online world.

The U16 Bill would be a great first step toward ensuring everyone behaves themselves in the playground, wouldn't it?

I guess it's only appropriate the Education Minister would be the one to teach us all that lesson…