In New Zealand, the current minimum age to legally access most social media platforms is 13. This is not because children are ready to use social media at 13, but because of 1998 US legislation prohibiting the collection of information about children without parental consent.

New Zealand can still be a world leader, alongside its Australian cousins, with immense support for such a policy.

As in Australia, there are some critics here, although their arguments often have notable weaknesses. They tend to support harm reduction techniques rather than focusing on preventative approaches.

Harm reduction is primarily used in the context of substance abuse among adults. A needle exchange program is one example. Although this does not stop people from using drugs, it helps reduce the level of harm by preventing the spread of disease.

Likewise, teaching children to seek out and talk to adults after being exposed to an online predator does not prevent them from being harmed by the predator, but it may reduce the impact of that exposure.

Harm reduction focuses on mitigating harm after it occurs. Parents, teachers and policy makers should carefully consider proposed “harm reduction” approaches.

For example, some argue that digital literacy is the real problem and that we simply need to teach our children to be good digital citizens.

Being a good digital citizen involves protecting personal information, using good judgment, and treating others with respect. But these measures will not prevent social media-related harm.

In just a few hours TikTokyour child can (and will likely see) videos featuring aggressive and violent behavior, sexually aggressive content, and videos of self-harm. Algorithms transmit this content to children; they don’t need to search for it.

And these algorithms are simply too powerful to grow brains.

Teaching children to become good digital citizens won’t prevent harm – but a policy to avoid being exposed in the first place could.

Another argument is that we need to have open discussions with our children and teach them how to have healthy relationships with social media. Education is important – children need to know why and how social media causes harm – but education alone is unlikely to change behaviors and therefore prevent harm.

Teaching people about healthy eating doesn’t stop them from indulging in junk food. We should not expect anything different from social media education. Education cannot compete with a platform that exploits the vulnerabilities of adolescent brains.

We should not give children a product that has been shown to harm their well-being and then expect them to use it responsibly or hold themselves accountable for their use. Just as we don’t expect children to have healthy relationships with other addictive products, the same should be true for social media.

The fact that “the horse ran away” is also a popular argument against the policy change. Essentially, this means that it is too late to act and all we can do now is limit the damage.

However, for the countless children who currently do not have access to social media, the horse is still very much in the “barn”. We can do something to prevent future harm to these children, and that is part of the goal of the policy to delay access to social media: to prevent harm to future generations. We need to stop thinking that we are helpless in the situation we currently find ourselves in.

Critics also argue that children would find ways around the policy change. I agree. They will, just like they do with vapes and alcohol.

However, we never imagined that policies regarding the sale of vapes and alcohol to minors would be 100% effective. Likewise, no such expectation exists with the proposed change to the age of access to social media. These policies aim to empower parents and change societal expectations and standards. And for many children, these policies will also help prevent exposure to the harmful product in the first place.

While harm reduction may be appropriate in some contexts, we can certainly do better for children – particularly when a feasible prevention strategy is available, such as delaying access to social media.

Delaying access to social media is not only about reducing harm, but also about preventing it in the first place. This is not to say that delaying access will solve “the problem” – the problem being the negative impacts of social media on our children and adolescents. This is an oversimplification of the proposed policy objective. Instead, the policy aims to change norms and empower parents to say “no” to their 12-year-old child when he or she asks for a smartphone.

With a focus on prevention, we prioritize real-world relationships, offline social environments (many of which have been eroded due to digital spaces), and opportunities for children to experience joy and connection beyond of the screen. In doing so, we can help today’s children learn that there are other ways to connect and form meaningful relationships.

But if we continue to promote the idea that children will be isolated without social media, we are essentially accepting that social media has created a problem that only social media can solve – and that there is no way to get out.

Too many of us accept that we are powerless to create meaningful change. Other countries are now standing up and declaring that they will no longer be told they are powerless.

New Zealand can do the same. Our children deserve more than harm reduction: they do not deserve any harm caused by social media. At the very least, isn’t that what we’re looking for?