Beyond Screen Time: Why Digital Media Needs Regulation – Expert Reaction

Digital media is a public health issue and tech giants are using the “tobacco industry playbook” to resist regulation, international researchers say.

Willpower alone won’t protect kids from the health risks of platform designs focused on commercial benefit, they argue.

The SMC asked NZ experts to comment.

Dr Alex Beattie, School of Information Management, Victoria University of Wellington, comments:

“The key value of these Lancet publications is that it shifts the debate about young people and digital media away from individual ‘screen time’ and towards the wider digital environments that shape health, including platform design, commercial incentives, data systems, infrastructure and regulation.

“Many of these ideas are not new to media, communication or technology research, but it is significant that public health is now treating digital platforms as environments that require governance, not just personal responsibility from children, parents or schools. The evidence reviewed raises real reasons for concern, but it is important not to confuse association with causation. As the authors acknowledge, much of the research remains cross-sectional, inconsistently measured and reliant on self-report, so the large population-level burden estimates presented here should be understood as illustrating the potential scale of the problem rather than proving that digital media caused it.

“For New Zealand, this means we should be skeptical about treating an under-16 social media restriction as an effective solution. The stronger agenda is to make platforms safer by design, improve access to independent data, regulate harmful commercial practices, protect privacy, through a regulatory framework that reflects Te Tiriti, Māori data sovereignty, youth participation and the different ways young people use digital media for connection, learning, identity and support. ”

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

Conflict of interest statement: “I am the recipient of a Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Grant for a project called Saving Screen Time: People with ADHD and Disconnecting from the Internet.”

Professor Cheryl Brown, School of Social and Cultural Studies, University of Canterbury, comments:

“It is encouraging to read research from the health sector that moves away from a focus on devices, platforms, or individual behaviours, to draw attention to the infrastructures, business models, and design choices that shape how digital technologies influence peoples health and wellbeing.

“In a post-digital world, where the boundaries between online and offline, digital and analogue, human and technology are increasingly blurred, this framing of “digital determinants of health” enables a focus on the wider forces shaping our digital experiences. As a researcher of digital (in)equality, I appreciate the advocacy for a balanced framing of both opportunities and risks. Too often debates focus on excessive or problematic digital use/ experiences, yet exclusion from digital spaces can be equally problematic as social, educational, economic, and civic participation increasingly depend on digital systems.

“The emphasis on global cooperation, open access, and accountability is significant and it is positive that the Public Health sector is amplifying the call for greater scrutiny of “Big Tech” and calling out the ways corporate practices impact human and planetary health.

“The recommendation for a move beyond narrow measures of screen time alongside rejection of simplistic solutions centred on restricting access to devices recognises the complexities of digital media across different ages, stages, contexts and practices. We would do well in Aotearoa New Zealand to explore more nuanced and less individualistic approaches to digital issues as well.

“I was particularly encouraged by the commitment to treating digital media as a legitimate and meaningful part of young people’s lives, and the urge for inclusion of youth voices in the research process. This has been clear in research I have been involved with in the Waitaha region. Youth want and need to be involved in decision making about their futures.”

Conflict of interest statement: “None.”

Professor Terryann Clark on behalf of Te Ata Hāpara Suicide Prevention Research Centre, University of Auckland, comments:

“Te Ata Hāpara is a research centre founded on Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the lived experiences of whānau. We translate rigorous science into practical solutions and therefore support many of the key findings of these papers. In particular, the shift away from approaches that place responsibility for digital safety on individuals towards a comprehensive public health approach.”Integrating the concept of digital determinants of health (DDoH) into public health policy and law, including preventive regulation, enforcement in child-facing settings are essential for creating safer digital environments. Critically, holding industry accountable for practices that target all of us, including our children.

“We agree, equity must remain central. Our suicide prevention research in Aotearoa has shown that digital environments often mirror and amplify existing inequities, especially for rangatahi Māori. A DDoH framework recognises that these challenges require systems-level solutions. For example, social media bans implemented without addressing the underlying causes of harm; the content, algorithms, governance and commercial incentives could reduce vital social supports for youth – and importantly the harm still exists for the rest of society.

“Given the rapidly evolving digital landscape, Aotearoa cannot address these challenges alone. Learning from international initiatives is critical. We therefore support stronger global cooperation, collective regulation, and monitoring of digital safety strategies. There is also an urgent need for standardised measures of both harms and benefits that move beyond simplistic indicators such as screen time and device use.

“Ultimately, these papers call for collective action focused on safety by design, regulation of algorithmic systems, and governance of the commercial incentives shaping our digital environments. These priorities align closely with what young people have consistently advocated for in our suicide prevention research. Critically, young people must be partners in designing solutions, as they are the architects of our shared digital future.”

Conflict of interest statement. “I have no conflict of interest – apart from my chair role with Cure Kids and research projects about youth mental health.”

Dr Samantha Marsh, Senior Research Fellow, General Practice & Primary Healthcare, University of Auckland, comments:

“This Series makes an important contribution by reframing young people’s digital media use as a public health issue rather than an issue of individual behaviour. In New Zealand, much of our response to this issue has focused on digital literacy, parental oversight, and teaching young people to use platforms “safely”. While important, these approaches are not enough when the risks are built into the design of digital environments themselves.

“The value of this Series is that it shows how even modest associations can matter at a population level when exposure is widespread, as is the case for screen use among New Zealand children. The modelling example illustrates how small effect sizes related to screen use can translate into substantial population-level impacts on outcomes like depression and obesity.

“The Series also makes a clear case that we do not need to wait for perfect causal evidence before taking action, particularly when the evidence is directionally consistent, the harms are biologically plausible, and the potential risk is spread across large numbers of children and adolescents.

“I also welcome the paper’s emphasis on structural drivers, including commercial incentives, persuasive design, and weak governance, rather than placing the responsibility on children and families. Lessons from public health tell us that individual willpower alone cannot solve a problem created by industry design and marketing.

“If I were to add one point, it would be that the youngest children deserve even clearer attention. For under-2s in particular, the balance of evidence suggests negligible benefits and real developmental concerns, so this should sit more explicitly within any prevention framework.

“Overall, this is a strong case for a precautionary, population-level response to screen use in children and young people.”

Conflict of interest statement: Dr Marsh is the academic advisor for the advocacy group B416.

© Scoop Media