Why We’re Still Opposing the Social Media Ban

A lot of people still ask why PILLAR is opposing the Under-16 Social Media Ban, even after dozens of videos, interviews, and a formal submission to Parliament. In light of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon coming out in full support of the bill its timely that we make our opposition clear again.

Maybe it’s true that people don’t really hear you until the eighth time you say it. So, at the risk of preaching to the choir, here’s where we stand, clearly and simply.

What We’re NOT Advocating For:

• Children having unrestricted or unsupervised access to social media

• Children owning smartphones

• Social media companies operating without accountability

We’re also not supporting a blunt, state-enforced ban that would lead to mass identity verification and data collection.

What We ARE Advocating For:

• Parental rights respected

• Digital education and resilience for parents, children, and teachers

• Targeted enforcement to remove truly illegal content online

We understand the desire to protect kids, but surrendering our freedom, privacy, and parental rights in exchange for poor solutions is not the way forward. This problem requires a a scalpel, not the state hammer.

Critics call our position unbalanced or conspiratorial, but no one can point to a single democracy where this kind of policy works. Apart from China, North Korea, and Russia, mass verification has failed everywhere it’s been tried because it goes against the principles of freedom itself. The problems social media creates are real. But the answer isn’t a sweeping government ban. 

If the last 24 hours have shown us anything, just look at the Jevon McSkimming scandal. The HDCA was sold as a way to protect children from online harm. Ten years later, it’s used to silence dissent, bully outspoken voices, and muzzle victims. This new ban, B416, is the same mistake all over again. It will not protect children, but it will expand government control over private life.

Before we rush into co-parenting with the state, surrendering our privacy, and creating a subjectively applied digital gatekeeper for online access, we need to stop and think.

Is this really the best option?

Ask yourself:

• What is the bill’s definition of “social media”?

• How will the ban actually be enforced?

• Who will collect, store, and verify everyone’s data?

• Why aren’t adult content sites being targeted instead?

These are the questions we all deserve answers to.

Because despite what lazy parents, alarmist academics, and power-hungry politicians might say, we can protect children online without sacrificing freedom and privacy.