Online Safety: Motion Seanad Éireann — 2026-02-26 ============================================================ Rónán Mullen (IND), National University of Ireland Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I welcome this motion in general terms. There is lot that is good in it and a lot that I support. I am of the view that it does not go far enough. It clearly nods in the direction that online safety is something that has to be a priority in the context of pursuing the economic potential that big tech and AI in particular offer. Where we might differ is that there is a difference between something being a priority and something being the priority. There are a number of issues in play here. There is the unique role of the Irish regulator, Coimisiún na Meán, because so many big tech companies' platforms have their European headquarters in Ireland. There is the surge of new knowledge around the problems associated with early, by which I mean early in children's lives, and excessive use of smartphones, screens and social media. There is the horrendous damage being done by adult consumption of pornography, not just where it entails in its production and distribution the exploitation of children, but the very exposure of children to pornography is in itself a form of child abuse. I say that in light of what we know about the harms it does, the way it rewires their minds, the generation of negative attitudes between men and women and all the rest of it, which we can discuss at another time. There is the pushback against controls from those who espouse a libertarian philosophy and promote the enablement of certain adult appetites around online services and who seek to make some kind of compromise between child safety and protection on the one hand, and a radicalised view of free expression and privacy on the other. There are questions about the adequacy of regulation itself, the cat-and-mouse struggle to get a situation under control, which we are seeing. We have not had a single prosecution of the purveyors of harmful content online as regards dangerous stuff on social media, or pornography. Users occasionally come within the cross-hairs of the Garda but certainly not those who are pushing the appetites and enabling them. The interplay of EU regulation and domestic legislation, particularly around civil and criminal liability, is a factor. When I brought forward legislation in recent times proposing strict criminal penalties for those who would not ensure strict age verification to ensure persons under 18 would not be able to access pornography, I was effectively told by the then Minister in the last Government that we were constrained here by our European obligations. In recent days, I heard a person from Digital Rights Ireland talking about the maximum harmonisation principle of EU law and the rules around country of origin regulation. In fact, what we know is that when people are sufficiently concerned and member states stamp their feet and say "No", we need to be able to take particular domestic measures. We see that it is possible and we have seen emerging legislation in France and Italy. We must stop hiding behind the skirts of the EU. The Government at the moment is tending very much towards hedging its bets around this question of a ban on social media access for under-16s. I heard what Senator O'Loughlin had to say this morning, appearing to pour cold water on the idea of such a ban. I will address that in a moment. I am also hearing noise from the Government to the effect that it would be much better if we moved forward with the EU. I am all for harmonisation with the EU but there comes a point where if the problem is not being solved, we need to take measures ourselves. In this House, I pointed to the apparent success around pornography in some American states, for example, where there was bipartisan support for measures that put the clear onus under criminal and-or civil law on pornography providers which, in certain circumstances, led to them withdrawing their services in particular states. That is effective legislative action. If we could get somewhere like that in this country, an awful lot of parents in particular would feel reassured. There is no time to discuss the amendments in detail. This is about children's mental health. I recommend to everybody to listen to what people such as Professor Jonathan Haidt says. He is an eminent social psychologist and there was a fantastic interview with him recently on the BBC with Amol Rajan on the programme "Radical". Listen to it and learn from it. It is clear, and the evidence is in, that excessive early access to phones and social media has been damaging children's mental health, their intellectual study and their results performance, and we know the connections with cyberbullying, self-image and all of these problems. It would be interesting to hear what Jonathan Haidt would have to say on whether a ban on social media access for under 16s would be a positive development. If the problem is serious, the response has to be serious as well. I know Senator O'Loughlin's intentions are completely honourable but, as I said at the committee yesterday in response to something an official from Coimisiún na Meán said regarding this talk about children finding workarounds and going to darker places and there being so much that is positive in social media usage, there is very little difference between this type of talk and the lines we hear from big tech. We need to be aware of this. There is a lot that is good is in the motion but we need to go much further and we need to do so quicker. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-02-26/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:42+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-02-26