Republished with Permission
Bryce Edwards
I am Political Analyst in Residence at Victoria University of Wellington, where I run the Democracy Project and am a full-time researcher in the School of Government.
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. It’s a well-deserved reputation, but there are also questions about whether they are being tainted by their financial reliance on big tech companies.
The latest issue on the political influence of big technology companies is about whether funding from social media giant Facebook might have impacted on Netsafe’s surprising stance against tighter regulation of social media for young people.
The debate over banning social media for young people
Australia is currently debating whether to ban social media companies from allowing under-16s from using their services. According to the Herald, “Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has supported calls to limit children’s access to social media and Opposition leader Peter Dutton has pledged to implement a ban on under-16s using the platforms.”
The worry has been sparked by a growing literature about the mental health risks caused by social media, especially for young people. This has been most famously espoused by American social psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s research, especially his new book, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. The rise of smartphones and online communications has led to a significant increase in mental health issues, body image problems and general status anxiety.
Here in New Zealand, political party leaders are giving some support to the idea of an age-ban being adopted in this country. Positive reactions have been made by Christopher Luxon, Chris Hipkins and David Seymour. The latter says that the ban is worth discussing, given the extent of the problem. In June he told Newshub: “I suspect that the rise in social media and smartphones everywhere has really changed young people’s brains, it’s increased the pressure on them. That’s something that as a society we are now working through.”
Yet, Netsafe has been entirely out of step with this mood, saying the idea is a “distraction” and a ban would just push any problems underground – kids would find other ways to use social media. The organisation wants a focus, instead, on improving young people’s digital literacy, helping them intelligently navigate, with critical thinking skills, the various online spaces.
Netsafe chief executive Brent Carey went on RNZ to explain their opposition to a ban: “We leave our young people at the age of 14 to babysit other people, or they can be left on their own by their parents, but we won’t be able to let them have Snapchat with their friends? It just doesn’t sort of ring true with how we treat young adults.”
Reacting to this, businesswoman Cecilia Robinson wrote last week in the Herald: “This analogy is deeply flawed. If we trust young teens to stay home alone, does that mean we should also allow them to gamble, drink alcohol or drive cars? These comparisons fall short when we account for the unique dangers posed by social media – platforms deliberately designed to be addictive and filled with harmful content that significantly impacts developing minds.”
Does Facebook fund Netsafe? And does this impact their advocacy?
The company that owns Facebook and Instagram, Meta, is one of Netsafe’s main funders. On its website Netsafe lists its financial supporters and partners, including Meta. Of course, it also has an array of other supporters, including government departments. The details of the financial support from Meta are not clear.
This financial relationship was highlighted yesterday by broadcaster Jesse Mulligan, who wrote a Substack post in which he asks: “Would you ask a health group part-funded by big tobacco whether we should ban cigarettes? An environmental group funded by Shell whether we should phase out oil?”
Mulligan says that the Meta money has not necessarily impacted on Netsafe’s stances, but he would like to see more transparency about it: “The most generous view is that Netsafe takes Meta’s money but keeps their opinions independent. If that is the case, we should still, I think, demand that the funding is disclosed (by the news organisation if not the interviewee) whenever Netsafe is expressing an opinion on social media.”
Of course, Netsafe might well be able to claim that the money from Meta is tiny, especially since most of its funding appears to come from the government. Mulligan responds to this, saying that having any funding from a big tech company is still likely to have an impact: “Does it matter exactly how much money Netsafe has received? I don’t think so. Even if it’s 50 dollars, there’s always the prospect of larger and ongoing amounts in the future. With government funding shrinking or disappearing everywhere, would you want to be the Netsafe CEO heading into your annual check-in with the Meta partnerships team, having just told New Zealand media you want their products banned?”
Cecilia Robinson also raises questions about such funding. In her Herald article, she says: “it’s essential to consider who is funding organisations that are involved in shaping these debates. When the media seek comments from ‘social media experts’ on the payroll of companies such as Meta, it raises questions about potential bias in their advocacy for lighter regulations, making it harder to trust their recommendations as being in the best interest of children’s safety.”
Lobbyists for big tech
Jesse Mulligan’s Substack post is titled “It’s not Watergate, but it’s a story”. This is because it includes his relaying of his Netsafe-Meta discussion in the weekend with fellow broadcaster and investigative journalist Guyon Espiner, who told Mulligan, “That’s a story… That’s definitely a story… I mean it’s not Watergate… But it’s a story.”
Espiner has made a name for himself as exposing the political influence of corporates, especially through the use of lobbyists. Last year he reported that Meta uses the corporate lobby firm Cosgrove & Partners, owned by former Labour Cabinet Minister Clayton Cosgrove
Espiner reported that in 2022 Cosgrove was able to contact his former colleague, Andrew Little, and get a meeting for Meta’s VP of public policy, Simon Milner, with the Cabinet Minister. Cosgrove just texted Little, saying that Milner “would love to meet with you” about disinformation and cyber security, to which the minister replied “Thanks Clayton… Yes, I would be very keen”.
According to Espiner's research, the other lobbying company working for big tech companies is Capital Government Relations, run by Neale Jones and Ben Thompson. In 2022 they represented Google and Mega (Kim Dotcom’s old firm). Espiner reported that Jones was able to text an advisor in Jan Tinetti’s Beehive office: “Hey, just wondering on behalf of Google if there’s any indication when Minister Tinetti’s paper on the review of online content regulation (is going to Cabinet)?” The adviser responded: “Going to Cabinet this month,” and Jones replied: “Cool thanks”.
The problems of NGOs being resourced by those they are meant to scrutinise
All charities need to raise money in order to operate. So it’s not surprising that Netsafe fundraises or takes money from companies in the sector in which it operates. Such partnership are increasingly common for NGOs. It is however quite a problem when those NGOs are meant to be watchdogs, applying scrutiny of those commercial firms.
But Netsafe isn’t the only one. Another useful case study is the New Zealand chapter of Transparency International, which is particularly enthusiastic about partnerships with other NGOs, corporates, and even the state. If you look on the anti-corruption watchdog’s website you will see that it gives thanks to the support of an array of big corporate players like Google, Deloitte, PwC, ANZ, Bell Gully, KPMG, and even the Employers and Manufacturers Association.
Perhaps even more concerning for a watchdog tasked with scrutinising and speaking up about public sector integrity issues, Transparency International NZ receives most of its funding from the following state institutions: the NZ Police, SFO, GCSB, MFAT, AG, DPMC, SIS, IRD, PSC, and MBIE. According to the NGO’s most recent annual report, of its annual income of $362,019, most comes from “Public Sector Support”: $310,000. Some argue, therefore, that the watchdog has become captured by its funders and is consequently highly-reluctant to criticise those that keep its operations going.
None of this means that either Transparency International or Netsafe are simply following the orders of their paymasters. For example, Netsafe’s arguments against a ban on social media for the under 16s has a lot of logic – and it’s essential to hear the other side of the debate on these significant issues. But what it does mean is that more scrutiny is needed about such charities. And, at the very least, all of these financial arrangements need to be much more transparent in the public debate.
Key Sources
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Newstalk ZB): Here’s a solution to handling kids and social media
Guyon Espiner (RNZ): How well-connected lobbyists ask for - and receive - urgent meetings, sensitive information and action on law changes for their corporate clients
Chris Keall (Herald): Should NZ follow Australia’s push to ban under-16s from social media? Netsafe’s surprising take (paywalled)
Jesse Mulligan: “It’s not Watergate, but it’s a story”
Cecilia Robinson (Herald): Netsafe’s social media stance out of touch, urged to address transparency on funding (paywalled)
RNZ: Banning kids from social media won’t solve anything – Netsafe
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack.
