Debate contribution: Social Media: Children and Young People
Debate contribution by Mrs Michelle Guy on .
- MLA
- Mrs Michelle Guy
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Social Media: Children and Young People
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5435944
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, I thank those who tabled the motion. I know that colleagues across the Chamber genuinely care about online safety, and that matters because parents, teachers and young people want to see us working together on it. The reality is that childhood has changed. Every generation faces new risks, but the pressures created by smartphones, constant connectivity and social media are unlike anything that we have ever seen. Those platforms are highly addictive by design and are engineered to maximise time online, because that is how profit is made through advertising and data extraction. A 2019 King's College London study found that almost a quarter of children were using their smartphones in a way consistent with behavioural addiction. A University of Cambridge cohort study, tracking almost 19,000 young people, found that nearly half believe that they are addicted to social media. It is no wonder that families feel that they have been left to navigate this alone. Companies worth billions with enormous lobbying power dominate this space, and Governments have failed to act decisively or effectively. There is now an ever-growing evidence base on the harms that young people face on social media. Therefore, Alliance supports the motion and believes that the Government should act in the best interests of children and families and not be swayed by the power wielded by huge corporations. We also need to be honest. This debate cannot start and end with a simple age ban. It also cannot be about saying that all social media or technology is harmful; in fact, there is evidence of real positives for young people using digital spaces. Let me be clear: we are content to shut the door to social media when it is unsafe but to open it when it is safe. Restrictions alone will not fix the problem. We are not against age bans, but we need to go further and give the issue the focus and detailed solutions that it deserves. It must sit within a wider system of regulation, enforcement, digital literacy and support for parents. Alliance supports a stronger and more considered approach; for example, a tiered, risk-based system of age restrictions up to 18. That would regulate access to specific platforms and high-risk functions. Failure to comply must have consequences, with significant fines for persistent offenders and suspension of services in the UK. Time caps should be considered because prolonged, chronic exposure is most clearly linked with harm. The Sinn Féin amendment raises legitimate concerns but removes the vital recognition of the harms caused by addictive design and harmful content. The original motion, for us, strikes a better balance, calling for proportionate restrictions alongside robust regulation. Children and young people deserve online spaces that are safe, healthy and designed around their well-being. That requires real restrictions, real accountability and real enforcement, so we are happy to support the motion.
477 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.59 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.35 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
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.