Debate contribution: Social Media: Children and Young People

Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on 10 February 2026.

MLA

Mr David Brooks

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

10 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Social Media: Children and Young People

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5435936

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will start by saying that I welcome the motion and thank the proposer for bringing it to the Floor. We are likely to prefer the motion over the amendment, but, regardless of that, there will be an awful lot of commonality around what we are speaking to. Everyone wants to push in the same direction. We all wish to protect the next generation online. Social media is now a part of everyday life, yet, while it presents risks to users of all ages, those risks fall most heavily on our children. Additional workable protections should be a welcome step as we strive to make the online world a safer place. Young people today face challenges and pressures that are different from those of the generations before them. We should not be blind to the harm that social media can cause. As Professor Jonathan Haidt argues in 'The Anxious Generation', the design of our digital environment is shaping behaviour and mental health. If we are serious about tackling poor mental health, we must take every opportunity to do so. We know that large numbers of our children encounter harmful content on self-harm, eating disorders and bullying pushed to them by recommendation systems. As the Children's Commissioner has noted, adult content still reaches children through major platforms despite their stated policies. It is clear that the first exposure to such content can occur shockingly early. Sadly, online bullying is widespread. Those are not abstract risks; they are the lived experiences of families and young people and children in our constituencies. Age-based proportionate restrictions deserve serious consideration as part of that package. Other countries are moving in that direction, and the British Government's consultation on children's social media use is an opportunity that we should take to press for protections on age assurance, addictive design features and, yes, perhaps even giving consideration to the prohibition of access to some platforms for under-16s. However, that is something that we should keep a watching review on, as we know that other jurisdictions have introduced it. We should watch that carefully. Here at home, our Education Minister has led by opening conversations on mobile phone use in schools and by supporting practical resources, such as Smartphone Free Childhood's Parent Pact for families who wish to delay smartphones. That is exactly the sort of parent-first, pragmatic support that we need, alongside the regulation that we have talked about. The harms, of course, do not fall evenly, and the Opposition's education spokesperson, as well as some of my colleagues, have spoken eloquently in the past of their experiences of being made a victim of AI in that regard. I am not going to speak too much about that, because they have done so in the past. When we discuss violence against women and girls in the Chamber, we understand that social media impacts on girls' well-being and —.

Oh no; three minutes.

485 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:52 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.

Challenge this classification