Meta-funded groups joined ministry process on youth mental health

Sunday, 12 April 2026

Government documents have revealed that Meta — owner of Facebook and Instagram — funded Netsafe and Youthline while both organisations were involved in a Government-run process examining the impact of social media on young people’s mental health.

The organisations, which are both opposed to a proposed social media ban for under-16s, say the funding is limited and does not affect their independence or policy positions.

But Boyd Swinburn, chair of Health Coalition Aotearoa, said the relationships still raised a serious conflict-of-interest issue.

“There’s no doubt that that compromises those organisations in being able to make clear independent calls on what’s needed to protect people using social media,” he said.

Read more:

• Ban first, explain never: The Kiwis losing work, memories and community to Meta

• Children are growing up on screens. Experts warn their bodies are paying the price

• Hidden epidemic: The sextortion scam driving young New Zealanders to crisis

Swinburn said even relatively small amounts of funding could affect both actual and perceived independence and that it “clearly diminishes their voice, the independence of their voice, the confidence in it”.

He said both should cut ties with Meta.

“If they want a credible voice that New Zealanders can have confidence in, then they absolutely have to turn down that money.”

Documents obtained under the Official Information Act show Meta requested a meeting with Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey because it was keen to discuss initiatives it was taking to protect youth mental health, teen accounts, its Youthline partnership and the social media age ban in Australia.

The half-hour meeting in Doocey’s Beehive office on March 6, 2025 ‒ before National introduced a member’s bill seeking to ban social media for under-16s ‒ included Meta’s Asia Pacific policy director Mia Garlick, its New Zealand public policy manager Sophia Fitzgerald-Mansell and lobbyist Georgina Stylianou, managing director of Wellington-based public relations firm BRG. Stylianou is also a columnist for this newspaper and has argued against a social media ban.

The meeting was also attended by the Ministry of Health's Public Health Agency group manager, Ross Bell.

Handwritten meeting notes show that when young people’s mental health was discussed, Garlick said that the “science hasn’t settled” and that the “evidence might not be there”.

The notes recorded Garlick saying that Meta wouldn’t have a long-term business “if social media is bad”.

After the minister asked about the Government's role, Garlick pointed to Meta’s partnership with NetSafe on issues like eating disorders and sextortion.

Ahead of the meeting, officials told the minister that significant criticism of Meta’s impact on youth mental health and a legal backlash had prompted the platform to review what it could do to protect youth, which led to it creating “teen accounts”.

“It is estimated that 95% of New Zealand youth use social media. Meta can therefore play a significant role in tackling some of the most pressing challenges facing young people,” officials said.

“This meeting is an opportunity for you to ask Meta whether they have any data they can share about social media and mental health.”

Officials said that while there is an increasing body of research on the negative impact of social media use on youth mental health, due to the wide-ranging number of social variables and environmental factors involved in studying social media use “it is unlikely that direct causal links could ever be established”.

But they suggested the minister press Meta on this.

“Studies have found that youth who are addicted to social media are more likely to suffer anxiety than those who are not addicted.

“You could ask Meta what they are doing to look at the addictive nature of social media algorithms, and whether they are considering any protective mechanisms against this, particularly for youth.”

Do you have a story about big tech? Email amelia.wade@thepost.co.nz

Meta has consistently resisted accusations that its platforms are addictive, but a recent landmark lawsuit in the United States has found it liable for designing apps that harmed children and teens.

The documents also detail the Kiwi organisations Meta funds and works with.

Meta is one of Youthline’s corporate partners. Its support included grant funding for Youthline’s operations, particularly during Covid lockdowns, as well as advertising credits to promote Youthline’s services following a suicide or self-injury incident.

In a statement, Youthline chief executive Shae Ronald said her organisation received “a small amount of funding from Meta for the promotion and delivery of our services to young people”.

She said Meta funding represented 0.8% of Youthline’s total funding in the 2026 financial year and “does not influence our policy positions”.

Ronald said support from Meta helped Youthline build awareness so young people knew where and how to seek help, and was particularly important at a time when funding was challenging for not-for-profit organisations.

The briefing also identified Meta as a funding partner for Netsafe, saying it worked with Netsafe across operations, policy and education, including by flagging content directly to the company and partnering on online safety initiatives and school resources.

The Sunday Star-Times can reveal an internal NetSafe document says its “trusted flagger status is taonga”.

Netsafe’s child protection policy, obtained under the OIA, says that status means requests for content removal or action are more likely to succeed when they come from Netsafe.

“It is a privileged status. One we cannot afford to lose or be criticised for abusing.”

In a statement, Netsafe chief executive Brent Carey said the term taonga referred to capabilities that were highly valuable in protecting New Zealanders from harm.

He said trusted flagger status allowed Netsafe to escalate serious cases more quickly and was “a tool in service of victims, not platforms”.

Carey said project-based funding made up just 2.5% of Netsafe’s total income in the last financial year.

Netsafe’s statutory role under the Harmful Digital Communications Act was funded entirely by the Government and that platforms did not fund its casework, governance or policy positions, he said.

Any platform funding was time-limited and tied to specific harm-reduction projects, including checknetsafe.nz and a Papua New Guinea domestic violence helpline project.

Carey said Meta had “no influence over our governance, policy positions, or casework” and that Netsafe had publicly criticised Meta on issues including scam advertising, enforcement failures and child protection.

But Swinburn said even relatively small amounts of funding could affect both actual and perceived independence.

“That’s called conflicts of interest. That’s absolutely clear, and it clearly diminishes their voice, the independence of their voice, the confidence in it,” he said.

“You can’t take money from people that you are making commentary about and expect that the citizens of New Zealand think you are untainted.”

Carey, however, said NetSafe’s relationship with Meta wasn’t optional.

As the approved agency under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, Netsafe is required by law to maintain relationships with technology platforms to resolve harmful content and support victims quickly.

“The suggestion that receiving disclosed, project-based funding from platforms creates a conflict of interest misunderstands both Netsafe’s statutory obligations under the HDCA and how harm-reduction work is funded and delivered locally and globally,” Carey said.

The internal documents, obtained by social media ban lobby group B416, also show that Netsafe and Youthline were part of the Health Ministry’s “deep dives” on social media harms held across April in 2025, and were invited to review and suggest changes to a draft summary report before it was finalised for the mental health minister.

In a statement, the deputy director-general of the Public Health Agency & Mental Health Group, Dr Andrew Old, said the deep dives brought together 25 experts, including academics, young people with lived experience of social media, and people working with young people in communities.

It said the sessions were structured so all attendees could contribute, with a particular focus on hearing directly from young people.

Emails show Bell, a senior ministry official, circulated a draft “Deep dive summary report – The impacts of social media on youth mental health” to participants for optional review to ensure accuracy.

In that email, Bell told participants: “It’s important that we’ve accurately captured the insights shared and as such, we request that you review sections of this report that include your comments and the recommended forward actions.”

After the final session, he told participants the ministry was “pulling together an insights report and related advice” that would be shared with Doocey “to help inform the draft Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy and wider work programme”.

Bell told the participants, which are not listed in the documents, but included NetSafe and Youthline: “Your voice has helped shape a vital conversation, and I hope we can continue this work together to support safer, more supportive online spaces for our rangatahi.”

Old said the deep dives were not designed to inform the Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy or any specific set of policies or advice to Government.

He said they remained a resource that could be drawn on for ongoing work across Government on social media’s impact on youth mental health, if required.

But Swinburn said the ministry seeking input from groups that received industry funding risked undermining public confidence in official advice.

“It does run the risk of diminishing the ministry’s advice,” Swinburn said.

“We need confidence in the ministry that it is doing it in the best interests of New Zealanders.”