By Ada "Peer-Review" Sparks
New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says his government will introduce a bill seeking to bar children under 16 from using social media, with penalties for noncompliant platforms set at up to 10 percent of their global revenue — a figure large enough to hit even the biggest tech companies where it counts.
Under the proposed law, platforms would be required to take "reasonable steps" to verify users' ages. The mechanisms floated include cross-checking existing account information, facial recognition technology, and digital identity documents. None of these methods is foolproof, and none has been tested at the scale New Zealand is proposing; facial-age-estimation tools in particular have documented accuracy problems at the edges of age brackets, and workarounds — borrowed adult IDs, VPNs, doctored documents — are the norm wherever similar age gates have been tried.
Luxon's party frames the move as a response to harm done to "a generation of children," language that echoes Australia's under-16 social media ban, which took effect this year and remains the subject of active study on its actual effect on youth wellbeing and platform behavior. New Zealand's own reporting on this bill does not yet cite independent research demonstrating that hard age bans reduce harm versus alternative approaches — such as stricter recommendation-algorithm limits or default privacy settings for minors — that some child-safety researchers argue are better supported by evidence.
That gap matters. A policy built on genuine harm deserves genuine evidence about which interventions work, not just which ones poll well. As the bill moves through New Zealand's parliament, the questions worth tracking are the ones legislators haven't yet answered publicly: which age-verification technology will be mandated, what its false-positive and false-negative rates are, and who will audit platform compliance once the fines start being levied.
Extraordinary claims. Ordinary evidence? Then no.
— Compiled from reporting by The Guardian.
The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."