________
New Zealand: Any method to ban under-16s from social media will drift into digital IDs for everyone
By Rhoda Wlson | July 11, 1016
Initially, as part of the proposed social media ban on under-16s, the New Zealand government considered a restriction or outright ban on using VPNs.
The Government has since backed down on VPNs but the central issue remains: any ban strong enough to stop determined teenagers will almost certainly require intrusive checks on adults.
By Rhoda Wlson | July 11, 1016
Initially, as part of the proposed social media ban on under-16s, the New Zealand government considered a restriction or outright ban on using VPNs.
The Government has since backed down on VPNs but the central issue remains: any ban strong enough to stop determined teenagers will almost certainly require intrusive checks on adults.
Using age verification, for example, to limit under-16s access to online content will always drift into digital IDs for everyone and state control over the internet.
Parents Do Not Need Big Brother To Block Social Media
By Centrist | July 8, 2026
A Child Safety Policy Becomes Something Bigger
The proposed under-16 social media ban is being sold as child protection. That is the attractive part of the policy. Most parents know smartphones and social media can be harmful, addictive and corrosive for young people. But the political danger is that a policy aimed at children may become a system of online control for everyone.
The Post initially reported that the government was considering a VPN ban or restrictions as part of the policy work. National's Education Minister Erica Stanford has since said she is not pursuing VPN restrictions, after ACT made clear it would block any such move.
VPN stands for Virtual Private Network. It encrypts a user's internet connection and can make their device appear to be accessing the internet from another location.
ACT leader David Seymour took to X to say that "the government" is not pursuing such a thing. He said National MPs had been keen on a VPN ban at select committee, while Stanford has been developing proposals to ban under-16s from social media.
But the question remains how the government plans to enforce an under-16 social media ban without pushing adults toward online age checks, identity verification or other forms of digital access control.
While the government may not have adopted a VPN ban, the episode shows how quickly a child-safety policy can raise wider questions about privacy, enforcement and state control of the internet.
The Prime Minister previously announced that social media restrictions for under-16s would become part of the government’s work programme, with Stanford assigned to lead the work and bring options to Cabinet.
Parliament’s Education and Workforce Committee has also recommended age restrictions for social media platforms and further work on restricting social media access for under-16s.
Seymour Is Right About The Privacy Risk
Seymour's broader warning is that any ban strong enough to stop determined teenagers will almost certainly require intrusive checks on adults.
If a social media company must prove a user is over 16, then every user may eventually have to prove their age. That is where a child-safety policy begins to drift toward digital ID.
According to Seymour, "there's no point calling out China’s missiles if we’re going to copy their policies anyway."
InternetNZ has also warned against VPN regulation, saying, "We do not support VPN regulation and share many of the concerns raised by the ACT and Green Parties in their alternative reports."
InternetNZ argues that people use VPNs for valid reasons, including security and protection from surveillance. It has described VPN technology as standard practice for good cybersecurity, used by businesses, government and others.
That is why VPN restrictions are such a red flag. They are privacy and security tools used by workers, businesses, journalists and ordinary citizens who do not want every online action exposed to platforms, advertisers, or network providers.
Big Tech Already Gives Parents Tools
The deeper problem with Stanford’s approach is that it treats family discipline as a problem for the state to solve, even though most parents already have the power to restrict social media use at the device level.
Apple’s Screen Time allows parents to set age-related restrictions for content, purchases, downloads, privacy settings, inappropriate web content and app access. Parents can also prevent children from installing or deleting apps or making App Store purchases.
Google's Family Link lets parents block apps, set individual app time limits, require approval for new apps, block inappropriate sites and manage settings across Chrome, Google Play, YouTube and Search.
Samsung directs Galaxy users to parental controls and Google Family Link, which include the ability to block apps, lock devices, restrict content and set screen-time limits.
Please go to The Expose to continue reading.
Parents Do Not Need Big Brother To Block Social Media
By Centrist | July 8, 2026
A Child Safety Policy Becomes Something Bigger
The proposed under-16 social media ban is being sold as child protection. That is the attractive part of the policy. Most parents know smartphones and social media can be harmful, addictive and corrosive for young people. But the political danger is that a policy aimed at children may become a system of online control for everyone.
The Post initially reported that the government was considering a VPN ban or restrictions as part of the policy work. National's Education Minister Erica Stanford has since said she is not pursuing VPN restrictions, after ACT made clear it would block any such move.
VPN stands for Virtual Private Network. It encrypts a user's internet connection and can make their device appear to be accessing the internet from another location.
ACT leader David Seymour took to X to say that "the government" is not pursuing such a thing. He said National MPs had been keen on a VPN ban at select committee, while Stanford has been developing proposals to ban under-16s from social media.
But the question remains how the government plans to enforce an under-16 social media ban without pushing adults toward online age checks, identity verification or other forms of digital access control.
While the government may not have adopted a VPN ban, the episode shows how quickly a child-safety policy can raise wider questions about privacy, enforcement and state control of the internet.
The Prime Minister previously announced that social media restrictions for under-16s would become part of the government’s work programme, with Stanford assigned to lead the work and bring options to Cabinet.
Parliament’s Education and Workforce Committee has also recommended age restrictions for social media platforms and further work on restricting social media access for under-16s.
Seymour Is Right About The Privacy Risk
Seymour's broader warning is that any ban strong enough to stop determined teenagers will almost certainly require intrusive checks on adults.
If a social media company must prove a user is over 16, then every user may eventually have to prove their age. That is where a child-safety policy begins to drift toward digital ID.
According to Seymour, "there's no point calling out China’s missiles if we’re going to copy their policies anyway."
InternetNZ has also warned against VPN regulation, saying, "We do not support VPN regulation and share many of the concerns raised by the ACT and Green Parties in their alternative reports."
InternetNZ argues that people use VPNs for valid reasons, including security and protection from surveillance. It has described VPN technology as standard practice for good cybersecurity, used by businesses, government and others.
That is why VPN restrictions are such a red flag. They are privacy and security tools used by workers, businesses, journalists and ordinary citizens who do not want every online action exposed to platforms, advertisers, or network providers.
Big Tech Already Gives Parents Tools
The deeper problem with Stanford’s approach is that it treats family discipline as a problem for the state to solve, even though most parents already have the power to restrict social media use at the device level.
Apple’s Screen Time allows parents to set age-related restrictions for content, purchases, downloads, privacy settings, inappropriate web content and app access. Parents can also prevent children from installing or deleting apps or making App Store purchases.
Google's Family Link lets parents block apps, set individual app time limits, require approval for new apps, block inappropriate sites and manage settings across Chrome, Google Play, YouTube and Search.
Samsung directs Galaxy users to parental controls and Google Family Link, which include the ability to block apps, lock devices, restrict content and set screen-time limits.
Please go to The Expose to continue reading.
________
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.