Member's statement: Social Media Ban
Member's statement by Mr Alan Robinson on .
- MLA
- Mr Alan Robinson
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 June 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Social Media Ban
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5613377
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the announcement by the Prime Minister this morning that the Government intend to introduce a ban on social media access for those under the age of 16. The DUP supports efforts to better protect children and young people online. We have all seen growing evidence of the negative impact that social media can have on mental health, well-being and childhood. Research has highlighted links between excessive social media use and increased levels of anxiety, depression, sleep deprivation and exposure to cyberbullying. While social media can provide opportunities and connections, we cannot ignore the risks that many young people encounter online. Of course, many young people use social media responsibly and benefit from it. Equally, many parents work hard to supervise their children's online activity and set appropriate boundaries. However, the reality is that parents increasingly find themselves in a battle against sophisticated algorithms designed to maximise engagement and screen time. That is an incredibly difficult challenge for any family to face alone. For that reason, it is right that the Government consider whether greater safeguards are required. At the same time, any restrictions must be accompanied by continued education. We cannot simply legislate and assume that the problem is solved. Children and young people must be equipped with the knowledge and skills to navigate the online world safely. Online safety, digital literacy and awareness of online harms must remain a key priority in our schools, homes and wider areas. That said, we need to see the detail. Announcements make headlines, but legislation must be practical, enforceable and effective. Questions remain about age verification, enforcement mechanisms and how any restrictions would operate in practice. We should also learn from the experience of Australia, where concerns have been raised about loopholes, the ability of young people to circumvent restrictions and the challenges associated with age-verification technology. Those lessons should be carefully examined so that any UK-wide system —
— is robust and commands public confidence.
325 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.67 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.27 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:47 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.