Debate contribution: Social Media: Children and Young People
Debate contribution by Ms Cheryl Brownlee on .
- MLA
- Ms Cheryl Brownlee
- 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 5435948
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Last night, in preparation for the debate, I tried to do a wee bit of market research with my teenage daughter. I asked her if she had ever witnessed bullying or seen dangerous or harmful content or anything that made her feel concerned or sad. Her answer was no. That was for two reasons. One was probably because she knew that it would be raised in the Assembly at some point, and, two, I was her parent and she might not have felt comfortable sharing that information with me. I have no doubt, however, that she has seen dangerous things online. She might not fully realise it yet, but what she sees online has a huge effect on her life from her inspiration for her clothes, the influence on make-up to the constant rap music that she listens to. Social media has so much control over her world, as it does over many other children. As parents, we monitor as much as possible. We have conversations and warn of the dangers, but the reality is that it is a dark and wild space that would be almost impossible to tame never mind control. When you add exposure to harmful content, addictive design features and online abuse, it becomes clear that we cannot ignore the risk of those platforms. Research shows that young adults regret the time that they spend on their phones, describing it as "brain rot" or "doomscrolling". Robbie was right: if we are all honest, we do that ourselves. A 10-minute scroll can often turn into two hours, resulting in time lost and nothing gained and endless hours online comparing ourselves with others — our bodies, our clothes, our homes, our family life. It can have significant and serious impacts on our mental health, leaving us feeling never fully content. We have discussed many times in the Chamber the horrific abuse received online, often from faceless trolls, with little if any recourse and no consideration of mental well-being. It is addictive, persuasive and difficult to manage. The big tech companies really need to have accountability and responsibility for the damage that they cause. As a member of the Policing Board, I know that we have often talked about the lack of collaboration between those big companies and PSNI investigations and the struggles that the police have in trying to get the evidence required to get cases over the line. That definitely needs consideration. At the same time, screen time has real benefits supporting education interaction and access to support but only if it is balanced with good sleep, exercise and offline play. Early intervention programmes and guidance on healthy digital use are core critical components in any restriction. Of course, I welcome the Education Minister, with his parent packs and pouches but the importance of physical education as well. The evidence is clear that social media is linked to anxiety, depression and poor sleep. There are also many other difficult aspects to it. Three minutes are definitely not enough time to talk about such an important subject. We support the motion, and we will hopefully do anything we can to address social media usage among young people.
529 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 (0.78).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.78 | 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 | 0.54 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.26 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.15 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 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.