Debate contribution: AI Ethics: Posting of Children's Images Online
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- AI Ethics: Posting of Children's Images Online
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5311414
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I based the updated guidance for schools about using smartphones on their premises on safeguarding provisions for the protection of children and young people. That underpins the policy approach, so it is only right that posting material online is viewed in a safeguarding context and that any measures that schools put in place are there, ultimately, to protect our children and young people. All of us are constantly grappling with the issue, as technology — so people say — advances. However, this is not about a technological advance but an inappropriate use of technology, and we need to continue to review it in order to see what more we can do to protect our children and young people.
118 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: 0.03 (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 (0.81).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.52 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.29 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.12 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:15 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.