95bFM The addiction and mental health risks of social media
16 April, 2026
Interview by Theo Hayden, adapted by Chloe Porter
Social media giants are being held accountable for the addictive and endangering nature of their apps. Last week, US courts awarded compensation equal to $10.4 million New Zealand dollars to a woman who experienced addiction and mental health issues caused by Meta and YouTube. Meanwhile, in New Mexico, Meta was fined equal to $650 million New Zealand dollars for endangering children.
Terry-Ann Clark, a Professor of the University of Auckland School of Nursing, spoke to 95bFM’s The Wire about the international acknowledgement of social media harm and what lessons New Zealand could take.
Clark highlights how these international cases affirm many people's concerns about these companies regarding the “deliberate targeting, marketing and producing of content that actually can be really harmful to children and young people.”
These cases come at a time when governments are beginning to implement restrictions on social media use. Australia, for example, has introduced a complete ban on social media for those under the age of 16. However, these kinds of initiatives are difficult to implement, with Australia now pursuing further action against big tech companies after the initial ban wasn’t entirely successful.
Clark acknowledges the benefit of these cases establishing a precedent that these apps are harmful for children. She adds that the cases put the responsibility on social media companies "to design content that is safe, that is not going to harm our children," whilst recognising the place social media has in our world.
“It's how young people keep in contact, how they engage with the world, find out information. We actually could be, creating more harm by, you know, reducing young people's access to support.”
These platforms are deeply integrated in our lives and culture, so a complete ban “is a really blunt instrument for a much bigger issue, it sort of just sticks a sticking plaster on a gaping wound.”
It isn’t in these companies' best interests to create content that isn’t addictive or marketed to young people, so it becomes the job of the government to step in and enforce guidelines. Clark points to legislation currently in place that prevents the advertising of alcohol and tobacco during children's TV shows or times when children may be watching TV. These policies could help guide social media policies and protect children in Aotearoa without a complete ban.
Clark reflects on her own experience of seeing how young people are able to bypass restrictions and notes the need to question the effectiveness of parental controls. She argues that a more proactive systemic approach is needed.
Because children today are digital natives, responsibility cannot sit solely within families; changes need to be made from inside social media companies, by “making sure the content is safe,” and “looking at layers to minimise the harm.”
Instead, Clark says change can only be achieved through combined effort, noting that “global action needs to happen. If all of the nations say this is unacceptable, you cannot target our children. I think we've got far more power to be able to influence at that level.”
Clark importantly stresses that digital responsibility isn't something that will suddenly appear when a child reaches a certain age: “Young people aren’t going to magically figure out how to be responsible digital citizens at the age of 16.” Instead, she is calling for a gradual, guided approach.
It's an incremental thing we have to teach children, “like we teach young people how to drive.” Rather than handing over full independence at once, there should be “a whole range of things that… graduate young people into more independence and abilities to negotiate content by themselves.” If we change the way we view, teach and police social media, it can be a beneficial tool.
