The charity Netsafe is increasingly regarded as New Zealand’s “internet police”, or at least the leading authority on everything related to regulation and the dangers of the internet.
I believe Netsafe is largely correct, without needing to seek out hidden, nefarious motives behind its actions—though such elements may exist. The push for censorship seems to reflect, more importantly, the failure of parents and the education system to instill in young people the objective, critical thinking skills they need. These skills would better equip them with the resilience to navigate and critically assess potentially harmful information, regardless of its source. In today’s highly interconnected digital world, there’s no turning back, nor can we simply shield the younger generation by attempting to lock them out—it simply won’t work.
Interestingly enough the Chief Censor supports Netsafe's position, something that Ms Robinson (who disparagingly refers to those who disagree with her as "noisy") has overlooked. I think any journo looking into this story would find that Netsafe has very clean hands. I agree with their stance. Bans are futile in this space. I have a Substack on this coming up on Sept 20.
I’m about halfway through Haidt’s book, which is very stats heavy. He highlights the contrast between parents who won’t let their kids walk down to the corner dairy alone, yet allow virtually unsupervised internet access. Overprotective about certain things kids should be doing, and under protective where they are exposed to considerable potential harm (bullying and predators in particular). So while parents and schools can do the heavy lifting to limit or supervise access to devices for kids of certain ages, Netscape also needs to step up to at least recognise the potential problems. Or be accused of a conflict as you’ve indicated.
Have a read of Haidt's book. He started the research to delve into what is behind the explosion of mental health problems with kids of certain recent generations, something we're obviously seeing in NZ. Also why university students are unable to cope with ideas they don't like or disagree with (something that is free speech oriented in my view). That they ask universities to "protect" them from or insist on speakers' events being cancelled. Again, something we're seeing to a limited extent here in NZ. Another book he co-authored is "The Coddling of the American Mind," which gets into some of this as well. There is a connection being made between risk averse over-parenting and complete lack of oversight of online activities. I don't know what the answer is beyond limiting screen time in favour of other activities (and more effective parenting?), but the problem has been identified for these generations. And they aren't proponents of free speech as a result, quite the opposite.
I follow Haidt's blog but haven't read his books. I agree with his arguments about helicopter parenting, social media and teenagers, and phones' effects on teenage mental health. So something needs to change but I don't think a ban on teenagers signing up to SM is workable in practice. However, the proposed ban would be a comfort and very popular to lots of the parents Haidt talks about who won't let their kids play outdoors but are happy to have the screen replace being the parent.
Haidt co-authored "The Coddling of the American Mind" and wrote the Foreword to "The Cancelling of the American Mind". Strong and describing the problem but not so strong on defining a solution. Certainly I doubt he would be an advocate of State interference which would ban digital natives using their chosen means of communication - and this is what it is all about - a means of communication which engages matters such as freedom of expression and to express and receive information.
I think risk averseness goes beyond helicopter parents and extends to patronising and paternalistic politicians and bureaucrats along with their fellow travellers.
I believe Netsafe is largely correct, without needing to seek out hidden, nefarious motives behind its actions—though such elements may exist. The push for censorship seems to reflect, more importantly, the failure of parents and the education system to instill in young people the objective, critical thinking skills they need. These skills would better equip them with the resilience to navigate and critically assess potentially harmful information, regardless of its source. In today’s highly interconnected digital world, there’s no turning back, nor can we simply shield the younger generation by attempting to lock them out—it simply won’t work.
Interestingly enough the Chief Censor supports Netsafe's position, something that Ms Robinson (who disparagingly refers to those who disagree with her as "noisy") has overlooked. I think any journo looking into this story would find that Netsafe has very clean hands. I agree with their stance. Bans are futile in this space. I have a Substack on this coming up on Sept 20.
Is the Chief Censor also being paid off by Big Tech?
So no story there, and no research funding grant either.
😊
I’m about halfway through Haidt’s book, which is very stats heavy. He highlights the contrast between parents who won’t let their kids walk down to the corner dairy alone, yet allow virtually unsupervised internet access. Overprotective about certain things kids should be doing, and under protective where they are exposed to considerable potential harm (bullying and predators in particular). So while parents and schools can do the heavy lifting to limit or supervise access to devices for kids of certain ages, Netscape also needs to step up to at least recognise the potential problems. Or be accused of a conflict as you’ve indicated.
'Protecting kids' from social media will also be the end of anonymity on social media.
How will governments or tech companies age-verify SM accounts without proof of identification and that it is a real person?
Crack-downs always start off with campaigns badged as 'protecting children'.
Have a read of Haidt's book. He started the research to delve into what is behind the explosion of mental health problems with kids of certain recent generations, something we're obviously seeing in NZ. Also why university students are unable to cope with ideas they don't like or disagree with (something that is free speech oriented in my view). That they ask universities to "protect" them from or insist on speakers' events being cancelled. Again, something we're seeing to a limited extent here in NZ. Another book he co-authored is "The Coddling of the American Mind," which gets into some of this as well. There is a connection being made between risk averse over-parenting and complete lack of oversight of online activities. I don't know what the answer is beyond limiting screen time in favour of other activities (and more effective parenting?), but the problem has been identified for these generations. And they aren't proponents of free speech as a result, quite the opposite.
I follow Haidt's blog but haven't read his books. I agree with his arguments about helicopter parenting, social media and teenagers, and phones' effects on teenage mental health. So something needs to change but I don't think a ban on teenagers signing up to SM is workable in practice. However, the proposed ban would be a comfort and very popular to lots of the parents Haidt talks about who won't let their kids play outdoors but are happy to have the screen replace being the parent.
Haidt co-authored "The Coddling of the American Mind" and wrote the Foreword to "The Cancelling of the American Mind". Strong and describing the problem but not so strong on defining a solution. Certainly I doubt he would be an advocate of State interference which would ban digital natives using their chosen means of communication - and this is what it is all about - a means of communication which engages matters such as freedom of expression and to express and receive information.
I think risk averseness goes beyond helicopter parents and extends to patronising and paternalistic politicians and bureaucrats along with their fellow travellers.
Where's his blog? I just went onto his website to try to follow but couldn't find it. thanks.
Sorry, I misrepresented it - he has a substack. I don't subscribe to it.
jonathanhaidt@substack.com