Debate contribution: Social Media: Children and Young People
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Baker on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Baker
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 10 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Social Media: Children and Young People
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5435976
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
The focus today needs to be on the big social media companies. When we have this conversation, everyone says that they want the best for our young people, but the conversation quickly delves into social media and smartphones. What is the definition of social media? If you have that conversation with young people, they will tell you that it means Snapchat, WhatsApp and playing Playstation, Roblox and Fortnite. Those all involve interactions in the wider world and all have dangers. Our young people want protection, but they also want the right to participate. They want to be connected to their peers. Imposing outright bans and restrictions, in isolation, will cause unforeseen consequences. All our young people know about VPNs and how to access them through a quick, 30-second download. For anyone who does not know what a VPN is, it allows you to dip into a server anywhere in the world, which exposes your smartphone to the unforeseen consequences of downloading different data. Certain countries may not have such good regulation, which could expose someone to the darker side of the web, opening corridors to graphic pornography and exposure to all that is wrong with the internet. Do you know who does not know about VPNs? Parents. It is very easy to test that. Last week, in preparation for the debate, I went down to our youth club, and we did workshops with our 11- to 16-year olds. Every one of them identified that they need protection, but they felt that that should come from the companies. Young people should not be talked down to; they should be talked with, supported and guided through this. Young people know about VPNs, but I did a quick questionnaire on WhatsApp with my parents and their friends, and very few of them knew what a VPN was. When I asked them about social media, everything came full circle. Everyone was nostalgic and wanted to go back to the days when there were no phones, saying, "Was it not way better back then?". That is the problem: if you do not do it right, you end up putting our young people in greater danger. It is so important that we have the conversation, but we have to be realistic: if we do not understand social media, there is a wider implication. I thought that I had a good handle on our young people and social media in general, but — this is why WhatsApp is important — we do not even know the meaning of emojis. That was evident from the Netflix show 'Adolescence', which showed the meaning of a kidney bean emoji in the context of toxic masculinity, violence against women and girls and all of that. I guarantee that none of us would have known what that meant, but our young people did. Let us not push them down that path. We need education, and we need to work together. At this point, let us keep the focus on those who are responsible: the big firms —.
Elon Musk and the other billionaires are responsible, not our young people.
524 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.09 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.80).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.91).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.08 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.59 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.18 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.12 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.11 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.