Motion or amendment: Social Media Restrictions for Children and Young People
Motion or amendment by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 27 January 2026
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Social Media Restrictions for Children and Young People
- Assembly identifier
- Document 468138
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Social Media Restrictions for Children and Young People
That this Assembly recognises the growing body of evidence linking social media use as a cause of harm to the mental health, wellbeing and development of children and young people; notes the increasing concern around exposure to harmful content, addictive design features and online abuse; is aware that several countries are now moving towards stronger age-based restrictions on social media platforms; acknowledges that restrictions alone are not sufficient and that a holistic approach is required, including stronger platform regulation, digital literacy, parental support and effective enforcement; further notes the British Government’s consultation on online harms and child safety; believes that proportionate restrictions should be introduced to prohibit children under the age of 16 from accessing social media platforms, alongside wider reforms to make online spaces safer; and calls on the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to introduce these measures at the earliest opportunity.
154 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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | 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 | 0.75 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.16 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:20 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.