2026-03-04

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." The choice we have in this debate and in the vote tonight is whether the profits of social media companies or the health and safety of children are going to come first. That is the choice. The Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, himself said that the damage caused to young people by social media is the public health challenge of our time. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, when asked if we should turn off the algorithms, said we should. Simon Harris, the Tánaiste, said that some things are more important than money when speaking about the need to regulate big tech in the context of the revelations about the mass production of child sexual abuse imagery and imagery of sexual abuse of women by these corporations for profit. Big words; great, but now we have a Bill that implements the recommendation of the AI committee. It implements, to the letter, what the AI committee is calling for. We have a Bill that recommends what is called for by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, the National Women's Council of Ireland, the National Youth Council of Ireland and all of the experts who have looked at this area, which is to turn off the toxic social media algorithms that are force-feeding toxic content to our young people. What does the Government say? In its amendment, the Government declines to give the Bill a Second Reading on the grounds the issues the Bill seeks to address are already being addressed by Coimisiún na Meán through its implementation of Ireland's online safety framework. The Government does not quite have the neck to just vote it down because it knows this is popular and is being supported by backbench TDs. Deputy Brendan Smith explicitly called for the measure contained in this Bill about a year and a half ago. It will be interesting to see how he votes tonight. Instead, the Government tries to pretend to people that it is dealing with this issue. It is not dealing with this issue and the reason we know it is not dealing with this issue is that the online safety code, to which it refers, was explicitly amended to take this out. This was in the first draft. It was precisely what is contained in this Bill, which I will go on to explain in a minute. It was amended out because big tech lobbied and said, "Actually, do you know what? The algorithms are great. They protect people and that's why need to keep them". Then Coimisiún na Meán changed it and took it out. Big tech lobbying won out over the safety of our children. This is the Bill that will deal with, or significantly deal with, the issue of toxic content. As I said, it is precisely what all the relevant expert groups are calling for. To explain what the effect of the Bill would be, it is to turn off the recommender algorithm systems for anyone under 18 and turn them off by default for those over 18. Adults can choose to opt in. If the algorithm is explained in a transparent way and the platform can explain what you are signing up for, you can choose to opt in but it is turned off permanently for under-18s until they reach the age of 18. This would have the effect of turning social media back to what it was supposed to be and what it was sold to us all as, namely, a space where we can connect with our friends, build communities and so on, as opposed to, precisely as Micheál Martin says, a thing that is creating a major public health challenge. There is a huge mental health crisis among young people in particular but in society at large, it is driving a process of alienation, all for the profit of these major social media companies. Let us be clear: this is why the Government is opposing a measure to protect the health and safety of children. It is because these are huge, powerful corporations that have massive political sway and by which the Government is effectively captured. In regard to the amount of money we are talking about, in 2023, Meta generated over $134 billion in revenue, of which advertising revenue comprised $132 billion. The parent company of TikTok made $120 billion in revenue in 2023. YouTube's global advertising revenues were $31.5 billion in 2023. X was on track to bring in $2.5 billion in 2023. To be clear, these companies are interested in maximising their profits, not in creating safe spaces for young people, women or LGBTQ people. They are interested in maximising the length of time that eyeballs are on the screen so they can maximise the amount of advertising they can sell. That is what they are interested in. Their algorithms are simply designed to do that, and the consequence is the force-feeding of toxic content to young people. I will give an example. There was a study done by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate called YouTube's Anorexia Algorithm: How YouTube Recommends Eating Disorder Videos to Young Girls in the EU. The study looked at what videos YouTube recommends to a 13-year-old Irish girl who first watches one video about eating disorders. She then gets a thousand YouTube video recommendations. Two in three of those videos that she is then fed over the next couple of hours or whatever relate to eating disorders or weight loss. One in three of those videos is a video advocating harmful eating disorders. One in 20 of those videos involved the promotion of self harm or suicide content. Why are they doing that? Meta derives an estimated $2 million a year in revenue directly from a pro-eating disorder bubble on Instagram alone and $230 million from all those who follow this bubble. That revenue includes that derived from underage users. That is from a Fairplay for Kids report from 2022, Designing for Disorder: Instagram's Pro-eating Disorder Bubble. There was another study done at Dublin City University, DCU, called Recommending Toxicity: the Role of Algorithmic Recommender Functions on YouTube Shorts and TikTok in Promoting Male Supremacist Influencers. The study set up ten blank male-identified accounts. You go into a shop, buy a new, blank phone and say you are a young man between 16 and 18 years old. All of the male-identified accounts were fed masculinist, anti-feminist and other extremist content within 23 minutes on YouTube. To be clear, these accounts did not watch anything or opt in for any of this stuff. They did not even watch the one video referenced in the study in regard to anorexia and pro-eating disorder content being fed to young women. They did not seek it out at all but one of the accounts was fed this toxic misogyny within two minutes. It is incredible. Since then, we have had the development of so-called AI girlfriend apps, which is a thoroughly misleading term for apps with taglines like "Build your own AI slut". These apps incite boys to create child sexual abuse imagery by suggesting they upload real photos of people they know from their school or wherever. Within minutes, the app can then create extreme, degrading, deepfake pornography of girls in their class in school. To go back to the study from DCU, the vast majority of the content being recommended over two to three hours viewing was toxic. It was 76% on TikTok and 78% on YouTube Shorts. By the far the most prevalent feature of this content was Andrew Tate. The other toxic categories were the reactionary right and conspiracy, which accounted for 13.6% of recommended content on TikTok and 5.2% of recommended content on YouTube Shorts. Much of this was anti-transgender content. The report recommended that "recommender algorithms should be turned off by default". The professor involved in the study said, "The social media companies must come under increased pressure from the government to prioritise the safety and wellbeing of young people over profit." This is precisely the choice. I saw Deputy Ken O'Flynn from Independent Ireland was opposing this Bill and taking the side of the big tech companies over children on the spurious grounds that he is opposed to censorship. To be clear, there is not one iota, none whatsoever, of censorship involved in this legislation. This Bill will have no impact on the ability of people to create whatever content they want and to put it on social media. It simply prevents and stops the force-feeding of this toxic material to young people and enables the rest of us to opt out of it or choose not to opt in to have this material force-fed to us. This is simple. It really is. Niamh McDonald from the Hope & Courage Collective made the point at a press conference we had that we need to treat big tech as the big tobacco of our day and take action now to prevent even more widespread harms. We have to turn off the torrent of toxic content at its source, the big tech companies and the billionaire psychopaths who own them, instead of taking the Government's approach, as it is pointing to with reference to the online safety code, of putting all the responsibility on individual users and on parents, who are completely overwhelmed by all of this. I appeal to the Government at this stage to withdraw its amendment and pass the Bill. If it has detailed points to make, fine, let us do that in committee, but let us take the side of children and their safety and health and not the side of big tech companies and their profits.

I thank the Deputies for bringing forward this important proposal today. The Green Party welcomes this Bill and the broader discussion about how we can meaningfully protect children and young people online. Rapid changes in IT and the profound impact these are having on all our lives demand that we remain agile and responsive as a State to the need to scrutinise these technologies for the public good. We cannot be passive actors in a world where policy is dictated by tech moguls. Ireland occupies a privileged position in Europe by being host to several major technology firms. With that privilege, however, comes the important responsibility to take a leadership position in making sure these firms respect the rights of individuals. I called previously in this Chamber for Coimisiún na Meán to be given the powers to require all platforms to ensure that their recommender algorithms are turned off by default and for these systems to be prohibited for accounts held by people under the age of 18. This is just one more step we need to take to make the online space safer, but it is an important one. The point Deputy Murphy made about this not being censorship, and that all material will still be available and that all that will change is whom it is recommended to, is a particularly important one. We know from research undertaken in Ireland that recommender algorithms are vehicles for supercharging the most extreme and toxic content available on the Internet. The groundbreaking report from DCU's anti-bullying centre, Recommending Toxicity, found that the algorithms of TikTok and YouTube Shorts promote toxic content to boys and young men. Test accounts in that research were recommended an increasing amount of manosphere content, with the majority of messages promoting misogyny and bogus mental health advice. The findings of this report point to the urgent and concerning issues for parents, teachers, policymakers and society as a whole. In particular, the findings demonstrate that the social media companies are failing to protect children and young people. Women and girls will disproportionately bear the consequences of this failure, but they are also profoundly damaging to the boys and men who consume this content, particularly in relation to their mental well-being. It is clear, therefore, that in an effort to hook users and generate profits from advertising revenue, social media companies have allowed the proliferation of algorithms that cause serious harm to individuals. It is particularly egregious that these algorithms are being used to manipulate the content that children are consuming. In discussing recommender algorithms, it would be remiss of me not to mention another important external impact of these technologies, namely, the energy consumed in running them. I acknowledge the role the IT sector plays in our economy as an important employer here in Ireland, but we have to be honest with people about the trade-offs in terms of there being less capacity for housing connections and eating up the renewable energy capacity rather than allowing it to replace existing fossil fuel sources. It is our responsibility as legislators to balance business needs with the needs of ordinary people to have affordable energy and safe online spaces. We cannot have a no-questions-asked attitude, as was suggested to me by the Minister for Finance last week, either to this or to the potential social harms caused by these recommender systems. We have to be honest with people that there are trade-offs inherent in these policy debates and not pretend that we can have unlimited growth in data while keeping electricity affordable. I am happy, therefore, to support this Bill, but we as a country will need to go further and be proactive in how we deal with the impact that tech is having on our society. My party colleague Senator Malcolm Noonan spoke yesterday about the urgent need for X to appear before the media committee to answer questions about the generation of inappropriate material via Grok. It is deeply worrying that the Taoiseach made so little effort to ensure that this happens. I strongly urge the Government to take the issues of online safety more seriously and not to adopt a laissez-faire attitude to these changes. Business interests must not trump the interests of our young people.

People will gather today at 12.30 p.m. at O'Reilly Hall in University College Dublin, UCD, in what I anticipate will be one of the biggest protests there has been in UCD in decades, and probably ever. I do not know. I do know that everyone in the college and in other colleges is talking about what happened to a medical student. This is not removed from what we are discussing today. Does the Minister seriously think the rise of the manosphere has no connection to the rise in violent misogyny and gender-based violence? If he believes that, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. Last night, I was surprised that "Prime Time" published some of the horrific messages that had been sent to this young woman that have accompanied the image that was shared of her after she had been drugged and raped. I am not going to read all of them because they are too horrific, but let us bring a bit of reality in here as to what young women are having to suffer every day on the Internet. These messages included, "You slutty garbage." I will not go into what they proposed to do to her next. They continued, "You obese slut bastard"; "cocky suing bitch"; "disgusting whore"; "complaining bitch"; and basically "I won't be happy until you're hanging from a tree." It is obviously disturbing that there are people studying medicine who would draft messages like that. They really should not be and I hope the Minister is going to do something about it. The Internet is not a safe place for women, but neither is the world arising from it, and what I have read out is not even the worst. The manosphere has been operating unchecked for years now. Teachers, the Rape Crisis Centre and everybody has been studying its impact. Andrew Tate has 10.8 million followers on Twitter alone. We all know the statistic about 23 minutes; a16- to 18-year-old young man who sets up an account will be bombarded. Our young men are being groomed to hate women and the Minister does not seem to think this is a problem, because he has proposed absolutely nothing to deal with it. He is not going to support this Bill today, but he has not told us what he is going to do about this issue. I have raised this matter before. This is not new and everybody has been telling the Minister this. Toxic masculinity has an impact on the safety of women and children. The institute of men's health has reported 73% of gen Z are consuming this. Sixty-one per cent of all men consume this toxic content regularly. It is being fed to young men at an alarming rate. The ideas it puts forward are that men should control women and that traditional gender roles are what we should have, and it is having a real impact. A third of young men believe that you cannot change your mind after consenting to sex, that at no point can you change your mind after that. Forty-six per cent of all men believe that people make up or exaggerate claims of non-consensual sex, according to a Dublin Rape Crisis Centre report. Forty percent of Irish men believe in traditionalist ideas of men and women, but it is much higher among younger men who are being fed this content. They agreed with or were unsure of statements such as "men who do not dominate in relationships are not real men"; it was 52% in relation to that. This is having an impact on young women and non-binary people. Sixty-seven per cent of schoolgirls said their school environment is not a safe place and 70% feel social media negatively affects their mental health. There is no discussion of International Women's Day on the Dáil schedule this week, which is outrageous because these issues are huge. I was thinking of reading out some of the comments I have been exposed to just for being a woman in public life, as I am sure other female TDs and other people have, and for people of colour it is even worse. The Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland, ASTI, has been reporting on this. A huge majority of educators note that online manosphere content negatively affects students. The Minister made a statement that Coimisiún na Meán is dealing with all this and that it is all in hand. What is he going to say to people who are gathering in UCD today, who absolutely understand the connection with these algorithms that are grooming young men to be violent towards women and hateful of women and the impact that is having on their lives? What will he say he is doing about it? Opposing this Bill really is shameful. We all know the Government is in thrall to the social media companies, such as Google. It never criticises a multinational company, particularly one from the US. That is just taken as read. We have seen that in its foreign policy, but this is having a real impact on people. It is having a real-life impact on their mental and physical health.

I move amendment No. 1: To delete all words after ”That" and substitute the following: "Dáil Éireann declines to give the Online Safety (Recommender Algorithms) Bill 2026 a second reading, on the grounds that the issues the Bill seeks to address are already being addressed by Coimisiún na Meán, Ireland's independent online safety and media regulator, through its implementation of Ireland's Online Safety Framework, together with the European Commission.". Gabhaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí éagsúla as an ábhar tábhachtach seo a thabhairt os comhair na Dála ar maidin. Mar a dúirt mé cheana sa Teach seo, is tosaíocht Rialtais í sábháilteacht gach duine in Éirinn, óg agus aosta, a chinntiú. Is cuid lárnach í an tsábháilteacht ar líne. Tá sí sin mar bhonn faoin straitéis náisiúnta digiteach agus um intleacht shaorga 2030, a foilsíodh le déanaí. Is é uaillmhian na straitéise ná na buntáistí is féidir le teicneolaíochtaí digiteacha agus intleacht shaorga a thairiscint dár sochaí agus geilleagair a uasmhéadú chomh maith le tiomantas an Rialtais chun sábháilteacht ar líne a fheabhsú agus a threisiú, go háirithe do leanaí agus daoine óga mar thosaíocht don chóras iomlán. Ireland is working closely with our European colleagues and partners, industry and other stakeholders to ensure a coherent regulatory framework that protects all consumers and vulnerable groups. The strategy includes a strong focus on further strengthening our strategic engagement on the EU’s digital agenda as a strong advocate at EU level for a balanced and proportionate approach to digital regulation. It is also my intention that online safety will be front and centre during Ireland’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union, on behalf of my Department. I have made that position clear on a number of occasions. Coimisiún na Meán is now firmly established at the heart of Ireland's online safety framework, which comprises the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act, the EU Digital Services Act, DSA, and the EU terrorist content online regulation. While I appreciate the good intentions underlying the Deputies’ Bill, we must acknowledge that under this new legislative framework, the issues around recommender systems can be and are being addressed. Article 27 of the EU Digital Services Act requires that platforms explain, in understandable language, the main parameters their systems use to suggest content, as well as providing options for users to change or influence these parameters. Articles 34 and 35 require platforms to assess and mitigate risks that their recommender systems may present, including to the protection of minors. Very large online platforms and very large online search engines that use recommender systems must allow users, including minors, the option to use recommender systems that do not rely on profiling. The obligation to focus on protecting minors is set out in the guidance produced by the European Commission under Article 28 of the EU Digital Services Act. We can already see the progress being made in addressing the risks of recommender systems. Last month, the European Commission, which is the lead regulator for the very large online platforms and search engines under the Digital Services Act, issued preliminary findings in its investigation that TikTok was in breach of the DSA in respect of its recommender systems, among other things. TikTok must now look to address those issues. The European Commission is investigating a number of other platforms in respect of recommender systems as well. This is EU regulation in action, so it would not be appropriate to look to amend our own legislation in this respect when the regulation and legislation are being implemented. In relation to data protection, it appears that section 2 of this Bill would alter the legal basis set out in the EU general data protection regulation, GDPR, for the processing of personal data by requiring consent in all cases where a person has not attained the age of 18 and permit such processing where a data subject has attained the age of 18. In addition, it sets out transparency requirements in relation to the option to select the recommender system. There is already an extensive existing body of case law under the GDPR as to what constitutes valid consent and sufficient transparency requirements. Section 2, therefore, may be in conflict with the GDPR. Given the cross-border nature of large-scale data processing, legislating in Ireland for additional limitations on the processing of personal data, if not in conflict with the GDPR, would likely have limited benefit. It would appear the Bill confines its provisions to video-sharing platform services as defined in the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act. This means it would only apply to such platforms established in Ireland, thereby excluding platforms such as Roblox or Snapchat, which are established elsewhere in the European Union. This would be a significant inconsistency that could disimprove online safety. The designated video-sharing platforms are also subject to the DSA, which ensures consistency across the European Union and is a maximum harmonisation piece of digital services legislation across the EU. While the Government acknowledges that recommender systems can amplify inappropriate, harmful or illegal content, it is not clear what would happen should a recommender system simply be switched off. In addition, recommender systems and algorithms serve to protect people, including children and young people, from harmful content. The DSA approach requires platforms to mitigate the risks and thus improve and enhance their recommender systems, which is preferable to the unknown risk of switching off those recommender systems. I, like every Deputy in the House, have a shared desire to improve online safety, in particular for children and young people; I say that as a father myself. I mentioned at the outset that Coimisiún na Meán is at the heart of our online safety framework. Since replacing the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland on its establishment in March 2023, the remit of an coimisiún has expanded and is continuing to grow. In addition to regulating broadcasting and on-demand media services, and leading on Ireland's online safety framework, Coimisiún na Meán has been designated as a fundamental rights authority and a market surveillance authority in respect of certain prohibited practices under the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. It has also been designated as a competent authority supervising online platforms under the EU regulation for transparency and targeting of political advertising, TTPA. Finally, it is envisaged that Coimisiún na Meán will take on functions under the European Media Freedom Act, which is being implemented in Ireland through the Media Regulation Bill. The nature of this framework demonstrates the cross-cutting nature of online safety. We have seen all too recently how the speed of the development of technology can bring wholly negative developments, as evidenced in the creation and dissemination of harmful and illegal content powered by Grok AI. However, An Coimisiún engaged with stakeholders like An Garda Síochána in Ireland and, under the DSA with the European Commission. An Coimisiún met with X as did the European Commission. As provided for under the DSA, and notwithstanding that X said it had taken steps to restrict the ability of Grok to create this content, the European Commission announced it was expanding its investigation of X and also that it could still take interim measures against X if the steps it took were not sufficient. I agree with Deputy O'Gorman that every platform that is domiciled in Ireland should go before an Oireachtas committee and should co-operate with Oireachtas committees. I said that previously in the House and outside it as well. The Government is engaging with the European Commission with regard to including this type of feature as a prohibited practice under the AI Act and the Minister for justice is considering the need for further measures in the area. I have written to Coimisiún na Meán to request it to develop a public awareness campaign on these matters and to work with the AI Advisory Council to review and update existing taxonomies of harm to include AI-generated harms. All of this is to underline the fact that online safety is a cross-departmental issue and Departments are working together on it. It also underlines how online safety crosses borders. That is why, as I said, I am making online safety the priority of our forthcoming Presidency of the European Council. We are planning a youth forum in the run-up to the Presidency and an online safety conference during it. I am eager to hear from children and young people themselves on issues, including about the digital age of majority. On that matter, and as set out in the recently published national digital and AI strategy, the Government is actively engaging with like-minded member states on the issue of the digital age of majority. As I have said in this House previously, there is no universality of views on whether there should be a digital age of majority and if so, what the age it should be, and if there is one, whether parental consent should be involved. Nevertheless, the Government would prefer an EU-level decision and the expert panel convened by European Commission President Ursula Van Der Leyen, is to report during the summer and this will be important to consider in any decision on this matter. I am also aware that there is no universality of views on this issue in Ireland or even in this House. However, at the same time, we can clearly see the risks that harmful content can present to our young people and, therefore, if required, Ireland will take action on this matter. Separately, we are working on an age verification tool as part of Ireland’s digital wallet with the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer. Let me be clear that the wallet is not just about age verification; it is about safe, secure and convenient access to public services, but it should also serve as a robust and privacy-respecting age verification tool. The wallet will not be mandatory for people to have nor will it be mandatory for platforms to use it. It is intended as a Government-sponsored safe, secure and privacy-preserving age verification option. A pilot is envisaged, which will be voluntary to participate in, and departmental officials continue to engage with platforms about their support for and participation in it and I would expect that they would do so. Nothing has been confirmed yet and work in being done in this regard. Finally, returning to the Bill, the approach set out at the EU level through the DSA primarily is a better approach to delivering on the shared objectives of protecting our children and our young people online and as a result I propose the amendment.

I welcome and support the Bill and I thank the People Before Profit Deputies for bringing it forward. It is vital legislation to protect children and to give adults the choice of opting in or opting out. All responsible bodies are calling for legislation like this, including the Joint Committee on Artificial Intelligence, Irish Council for Civil Liberties, the National Women's Council of Ireland and many more. The Bill does three main things. It bans video-sharing platforms from using recommender algorithms where they know the user is under 18 years of age or where they do not know the user's age, which is important. Second, for users over 18, it requires recommender algorithms not to use personal data unless the user has selected that option. Third, it requires video-sharing platforms to facilitate users in choosing recommender algorithm parameters. The Bill applies to all video-sharing platforms defined under existing law and includes all the main social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and LinkedIn. Crucially, it provides for Coimisiún na Meán to incorporate the provisions in this Bill into the online safety code. The Bill is necessary because social media companies and the State have failed to act to protect children. Numerous studies show that social media recommender algorithms are bombarding children with harmful material, including material that promotes self-harm, anorexia, suicide and toxic content that promotes misogyny, racism and transphobia. Up to now social media has been largely unregulated, with no regulation that threatens their profits. They have been completely secretive in relation to the parameters of their algorithms which they refuse to disclose either publicly or to governments. They prioritise trade secrets and commercial confidentiality over children's mental health. This is all about profit for social media companies. They use recommender algorithms because they believe that extreme and harmful content keeps people watching longer, allowing more time to show people advertising and harvest their personal data for marketing purposes. For instance, in 2023 Meta Ireland made €1.56 billion in post-tax profits in a very small market. The Bill sets out the detail of the legislation and provides that it will come into operation 90 days after promulgation by the President. It is deeply disappointing to say the least that the Government is opposing this Bill. I urge the Minister and the Government, even at this late stage, to reconsider that and to withdraw the amendment.

I thank People Before Profit for bringing forward this Bill, which is both timely and essential and which I completely support. As a father of four children, social media is the biggest issue in the day-to-day running of most houses. The influence it has on homes is ridiculous. Children growing up in this time and age are suffering from mental health issues and eating disorders like we have never seen before and it is connected. If we go to a wedding or to any event, we will see children taking out their phones. They are addicted to them. They are on Snapchat snapping away every aspect of their lives. They are not living life anymore. We are living in a rapidly evolving digital landscape that could become complex and deeply unsettling. We are raising children online in this world where everything is constantly evolving at a pace that they cannot handle. Everything becomes normalised. Children dying in Gaza and pictures of murders on the streets can come up under algorithms all the time. We are stuck in this, constantly trying to battle it if our child is upset. We ask them what happened and they tell us this. Some of them are 15 or 16 years of age now and they have been dealing with this for years. This plays out in multiple houses throughout this country. There is going to be an epidemic of mental health issues regarding algorithms moving forward. We have a responsibility to try to debate this. I understand where we are all coming from. We are meant to be on the same page but if we are, we need to move on this. More worrying is researchers for a DCU study found that every male social media account that was studied found that within 23 minutes there was anti-fascist content and other extreme content on the phone. Whether they sort this out, this content is fed through their algorithms. It comes onto their phones and has a direct effect on males, especially those at third level college. They have been dealing with this for years. It is affecting the way they are growing up and the lack of maturity among certain cohorts who are influenced by these algorithms. I want to make this clear. We need to make social media companies accountable. If we do not, we are failing society. TikTok opened its European data centre in Dublin just over two years ago and the Dublin transparency and accountability centre, which was opened by TikTok ironically in 2024, appears to be nothing more than a PR stunt. There is a lack of algorithm transparency. Social media companies are making millions of euro off the misery of children in Ireland. That is a fact. In school, there are SPHE classes once a week. How is that going to fix anything? It is completely the wrong approach. It is not fair of us to expect them to consume so much negativity and not be affected by it. They are affected by it, and we are responsible. As a parent, I am responsible, and I take my responsibility, just like everybody else up and down the country. Right now, these companies are not helping us. They are failing us. As parents, we are struggling to deal with this.

I thank People Before Profit for taking the initiative and bringing this important Bill forward. Is it necessary? Of course, it is necessary. I saw the repeat of “Prime Time” last night, which dealt with the experience of a young woman, Caitlyn, in UCD. She is roughly the same age as my granddaughter, who is also attending UCD. It stopped me in my tracks to see that people could have such attitudes. Where does that come from, and how did it develop? What is the role of online in this regard? We hope that Caitlyn can make a recovery. Her testimony was shocking. It shows the urgency with which we need to deal with this. Social media companies are using these algorithms to make money, and they are exploiting users of the Internet. It is about profit. Criminals are doing likewise. Children and young teenagers are exposed to all sorts of harmful content on the Internet. Algorithms can be used to increase exposure and steer people into rabbit holes that bring them into situations like the one we saw last night. They are geared towards hooking people and keeping them clicking. There is the potential for massive exploitation. Users need to have the right to turn them off. Tech companies should be held liable if their AI tools are used without the safeguards. The Government needs to regulate, and it has failed so far to do that. Some countries, including Australia, have moved to get young people off social media, and have put restrictions in place through effective age verification. That is essential. Along with what is proposed in this Bill, we should look to put an age limit on social media, although perhaps 14 instead of 16. It is an issue that needs to be explored. The exploitation of Internet users, particularly children and vulnerable people, needs to stop. The Oireachtas and the Government need to have legislation in place. We cannot leave it to the tech giants. They are making big money out of it, so they are not going to do it. It is clear what their intentions are. We have to protect people, in particular children. With regard to online safety, we can do things. Let us consider what we did with Coco’s law. We have that in place to deal with people who share intimate images of others or threaten to share images that they may or may not have. It is not always men who do it, and women can do it as well, but it is mainly men. The level of sexism out there is shocking. We need strong legislation. When people do that and then add extortion or blackmail, they need to be treated with the full rigour of the law. People who do that to try to extort money, on top of trying to expose images that they may or may not have, need to be treated as serious criminals. I support the Bill on algorithms. I thank People Before Profit. I am disappointed that the Government is not supporting it. We have to sort this out. The Minister referred to doing this when we have the EU Presidency. That is fine, but we need to do it. We have a responsibility to do it, as the Government and the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I welcome the intention of this Bill, which clearly aims to protect children from harm, and I commend People Before Profit on bringing it forward. We will support this Bill through to the next Stages, but we may work with People Before Profit on some amendments to it. We have been examining algorithms at several Oireachtas committees, including the Joint Committee on Arts, Media, Culture, Communications and Sport. The expert opinion given at those committees should feed into this Bill, add some detail and shape the final legislation. As with every other aspect of online safety, I will always be guided by the expert advice when it comes to algorithms, not by self-serving lobbies, not by big tech and not by assertions made by social media platforms that fly in the face of reality. At a recent committee hearing, Meta, Google and TikTok attended, and X declined to attend. All three attendees’ opening statements made assertions that their priorities were online safety, data protection and child and user welfare. They also stated that they can remove reported posts within hours. Their assertions do not marry with the testimony given by witnesses at the recent hearings on online safety. At those hearings, broadcaster Gráinne Seoige, An Garda Síochána, Media Literacy Ireland, the Hope and Courage Collective, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, CyberSafeKids and the Children's Rights Alliance gave detailed testimony on how the social media platforms were failing in their responsibilities. When the testimony from those contributors was put to the social media companies, they disputed that there were widespread problems. Social media companies are living in their own reality. Maybe their research and assertions are being driven by their own recommender algorithms, or maybe they have built a confirmation bias into those algorithms so they think they are always right. Whatever the case may be, they are divorced from reality. When assessed independently, they fail. Researchers have done tests on TikTok and YouTube. One case that I referenced at a committee hearing is a simulated account of a 13-year-old who watched one video containing eating disorder content. Afterwards, analysis of the results of 1,000 video recommendations by YouTube found that over one third were for harmful eating disorder content, including videos endorsing extreme calorie restriction and promoting dangerous diets like anorexia boot camp. These videos are in breach of YouTube's own policies, yet they were still there. In 2024, Dublin City University's anti-bullying centre showed that the recommender algorithms used by social media platforms were rapidly amplifying misogynistic and male supremacist content. In the UK and Australia, a joint study found that these algorithm feedback loops could intensify feelings of guilt, comparison and obsession around food and appearance. Research in the US found that people's daily interactions with online algorithms affect how they learn from others, with negative consequences, including social misperceptions, conflict and the spread of misinformation. What we take from that is that, when assessed, the platforms are failing. They allow harmful content, suicidal ideation and harmful eating disorder content. Their algorithms, as they currently are, push this on users regardless of age. I am disappointed the Government has tabled an amendment to the Bill to stop it from going forward. The Minister's assertion that what the Bill seeks to address is being addressed by Coimisiún na Meán, as Ireland's independent safety and media regulator, through its implementation of Ireland's online safety framework, together with the European Union, is not accurate. The online safety framework page only mentions transparency around algorithms. Two years ago, there was widespread dismay that toxic algorithms are not covered by the online safety code. In 2024, Coimisiún na Meán said that while it recognises that recommender systems can have harmful impacts on users, especially children, it would be best to be able to tackle the potential dangers of these systems through its implementation of the Digital Services Act. Can anyone in government honestly say that this has happened, or that, in reality, these toxic algorithms have been tackled? They have not. Study after study has shown the effects of that. That is why a Bill like this is necessary now. It is needed to stop the toxic echo chambers that are warping people's perception of reality. It is that simple. We have seen other gaps in legislation on online safety in recent months that need to be plugged. I commend anybody who brings a measure forward in an endeavour to do that. The Data Protection Commissioner has issued over €4 billion in fines over the past five years to these companies, including €530 million in the past year alone. It has, however, only collected 0.6% of these fines. That needs to be addressed. I ask the Minister to stop waiting for the EU to make the tough decisions for him. We have an opportunity here and now, as a collective, to introduce legislation that will address a big problem that is affecting people who live in Ireland. We need to do our jobs, as Irish legislators, and pass legislation for Ireland.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I welcome the intention of it, which is one that Sinn Féin shares: protecting our children from harm in the digital world. Digital participation is not a luxury in Ireland; it is a necessity. Our children have a right to be online, and it is enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. They have a right to participate, to access information and to be protected from exploitation. It is our job, as legislators, to ensure the digital environments they inhabit are safe. That is why we must urgently address recommender algorithms. These are not neutral tools. They are engagement engines programmed to maximise the time we spend on a platform. It is eyes on the screen. Their success is measured in revenue raised, not in well-being. For our young people, this means being fed an endless loop of content. We know these algorithms amplify extreme material, promote unrealistic body images and create hate-filled echo chambers that can cause immense damage. Large tech companies claim they are doing everything they can to ensure safety, yet without sufficient regulation, we cannot take their word for it. All of the evidence proves that to be the case. The failure to collect the vast majority of fines issued by the Data Protection Commissioner shows a lack of seriousness from the Government in holding these companies to account. They must be held responsible for what is on their platforms. The Minister's response and the fact that he is opposing this legislation is deeply disappointing. While it is probably not surprising, it is concerning. He mentioned the option to use recommender systems that do not rely on profiling and said the option to turn them off should be available. That is not enough. He said, "The DSA approach requires platforms to mitigate the risks and thus improve and enhance their recommender systems, which is preferable to the unknown risk of switching off those recommender systems." What is the risk of the status quo, which he is essentially suggesting should be maintained? We know the risk and the harm because of it. Time and again, the Government and the Minister do not do enough. In fact, he comes in as a spokesperson for those companies; that is what he sounds like. It is not enough. Like Deputy Joanna Byrne, I commend anyone trying to fight the good fight on this. We need to see action.

"Artificial intelligence, AI,-powered recommender systems are feeding millions of children toxic content about eating disorders, self-harm, and graphic videos...", according to the Irish Examiner last year. This is something parents have been saying for years and still there is no urgency from the Government to tackle this. Years later, it is failing to act. Young girls are being forced into eating disorders and young boys are being taught to hate women. I love social media and I can see positives in social media. I connect with my constituents, people all over the world and my family and friends but it is like driving a car. I have to wear a safety belt, have a driving licence, take safety precautions and the car has to be fit to drive. I cannot just get in and do it. When it comes to social media, there are no protections for young people and children. It is a free-for-all at the moment. It is disappointing that the Minister is not supporting this Bill. It is really disappointing that this Government is not doing more. We are not looking to ban social media. We are looking to regulate it and to put solutions in place. Children and young people are being failed by this Government. The onus is on the Minister now to rethink, adopt this Bill and work with us. We will all work together for the safety of young children.

That is the clearest the Deputy's party has been in a long time. Now I know where it stands. It is very helpful. He is not going to ban it. He will not support the Government. Thanks very much. He clarified something Deputy Byrne would not do last night.

Minister-----

I will have questions and answers with the Minister all he wants. I have no problem doing that.

I welcome Deputy Gould's point of view. It has been very enlightening.

Deputies, this is not a back and forth. I call Deputy Donnelly.

Can we restart the clock when the Minister is finished?

We welcome the intention of this Bill, which clearly aims to protect children from harm. There is no doubt we are in a different age to when most of us were growing up. Most people in this Chamber came to digital and social media whereas as for young people it has always been their experience; they know nothing else. It is our role as legislators to make it as safe we can for all users, especially young people. There is no doubt there are positive aspects to social media but we are also aware there are extreme harms being done to children, young people and vulnerable older people. The core of the damage is being done with the use of recommender algorithms. These algorithms aim to keep young people endlessly scrolling. We know they amplify extreme content and promote unrealistic body images and racist and misogynistic content. We all know and agree these algorithms are causing harm. We hear it time and again from both sides, yet the Government continues to kick it down the road. I wonder why. I am sorry the young people have left the Gallery. Maybe the Minister can explain to them why those harmful, toxic social media elements are being sent to them within minutes of engaging on social media. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in particular general comment No. 25, sets out children's rights in a digital environment. They are the rights to participate, the right to be protected from harm, the right not to be exploited for commercial gain and the right to access true and accurate information. Children have the right to be online. It is up to us, the lawmakers, to ensure they are not exploited. Does the Minister really believe these companies are going to do it for themselves? They are making billions of euro in profits from these recommender algorithms and so is the Government. Maybe that is the reluctance to deal with this.

Tá an timpeallacht dhigiteach lena bhfuil ár gcuid páistí ag idirghníomhú deartha ar bhealach andúileach ionas go gcaitheann úsáideoirí an méid is mó ama ar an ardán. Is tríd am an úsáideora a dhéanann na comhlachtaí teicneolaíochta brabús. Mar sin, déanfaidh siad pé rud chun aird a choinneáil ar an scáileán, beag beann ar an tionchar sláinte. Is fiú a bheith an-soiléir faoi seo. Tá rath-ardáin Meta, X agus Tiktok ag brath ar an díbhinn ar féidir leo a híoc lena gcuid scairshealbhóirí, ní ar fhorbairt an duine atá á n-úsáid. An-mhinic, téann an dá chuspóir sin in aghaidh a chéile. Go deimhin, tá a fhios againn go ndearna Meta féin taighde ar éifeachtaí meabhairshláinte an ardáin i measc déagóirí agus fuair sé amach go gcuireann úsáid leanúnach le himní agus dúlagar san aos óg. Ar athraigh na torthaí seo cur chuige an chomhlachta? Níor athraigh. D'aithin na hardáin teicneolaíochta go raibh na halgartaim ag obair díreach mar ba chóir dóibh a bheith chun daoine a choinneáil báite sa fón. Seo cruthúnas dobhréagnaithe gur cuma sa tsioc leo faoinár gcuid páistí. Agus an méid seo ar fad ar eolas againn, is beag iarracht atá déanta srian a chur ar na comhlachtaí seo. Le rófhada, tá na hardáin seo fágtha chun iad féin a rialú. Déanann siad stocaireacht fíochmhar in aghaidh aon iarracht rialacha a chur orthu. Tá sé thar am againn cur i gcoinne na moltaí algartamacha. Anois an t-am ceart chun iad a rialú, mar faoi láthair tá siad agus a n-úinéirí ag déanamh rialú orainne. Tá rannpháirtíocht ar líne mar chuid lárnach de shaol an lae inniu. Más olc nó maith é, beidh na glúnta ag teacht aníos ag baint úsáid as scáileáin, ach ní shin le rá nach bhfuil aon neart againn ar cén cuma atá orthu. Is féidir linn spásanna ar líne atá sábháilte agus fabhrach ar fhorbairt phearsanta a mhúnlú dár bpáistí. Seasaimid an fód in aghaidh na fathacha teic. Cosnóimid páistí na hÉireann ó dhochar agus ó shaint na gcomhlachtaí. Is iad a dtodhchaí agus a bhfolláine atá idir dhá cheann na meá. Tá mé ag tacú leis an mBille ar an gCéim seo. Beidh Sinn Féin ag cur isteach leasaithe, ach i bprionsabal aontaímid leis.

I thank People Before Profit for bringing this Bill forward. This Bill would amend the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022 to regulate the use of recommender algorithms by videosharing platforms. Recommender algorithms are purposely built into many online platforms. The sole purpose of a recommender algorithm is to keep the individual engaged as long as possible, act as an influencer and prompt suggestions connected to his or her personal search. In some cases, it sets out to shape a narrative and stir deep emotional feelings. The problem we face is how to protect children, vulnerable adults and society from being manipulated and, in some extreme cases, radicalised. We have all read about the online digital self-harm most common among young girls and cyberbullying resulting in suicidal ideation and worse. Recently, we had the Grok scandal where nudification of children and women was made public and shared at a rate of 6,700 sexualised images per hour. This is why support this Bill to the next Stage. We know regulation must be imposed on these platforms but we must make it absolutely safe for children. They must have the right to be protected from harm, the right not to be exploited for commercial gain and the right to have accurate and truthful information. The only way this can be done is through legislation, which this Bill does but it needs a little refining before it reaches Final Stage. Sinn Féin fully believes big tech companies must be held responsible for what they produce on their platforms. We also are very much in favour of safety by design practices and full protection of GDPR and citizens' personal data. The digital world is here to stay. We must make sure the Government plays a leading role with an all-Ireland, country-wide digital literacy campaign to make people aware of how recommender algorithms work and empower citizens to make informed decisions, weigh up the criteria and alternatives to what is being put forward by such recommender algorithms. At its heart, this Bill has the protection of children, who are the most subject to peer pressure and all sorts of influences and recommender algorithms. Big tech companies will exploit this human trait. If strong legislation, regulation and oversight are not put in place now, we are failing our young people and our most vulnerable citizens. I believe we will live to regret that in the very near future. In a study of children aged from ten to 14 in the UK, children asked how this was allowed to happen; we were the adults in the room. To not allow this Bill to progress from Second Stage is an abdication of responsibility for our children's future and it will come back to haunt the Minister.

In the digital age we need to keep up with technology, keep a close eye on it and ensure children are safe. As we all know, algorithms are designed by the big tech giants to be addictive - the equivalent of digital cocaine. They know, insidiously, that they are destroying the physical and mental well-being of an entire generation of young people today for one sole purpose, namely, to broaden their customer base. Our online safety recommender Bill proposed amendments to the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act and how video sharing platforms use the recommender algorithms. Algorithms are designed to keep people endlessly scrolling, as we all know, which has a huge impact on young people's mental health. They are designed to amplify extreme content, promote unrealistic body image and distort reality. We have to have a number of elements for safe and responsible participation, which would include appropriate and effective regulation of digital content. We have seen the damage Grok can cause and how children are exposed to such dangers and harmful behaviours. This is why we strongly need to stand up to big tech companies. These companies are based just a stone's throw from this building. It would be criminally irresponsible for us not to take on the big tech giants we seem to have prostituted this country to, in many ways. We need to hold them to account for what appears on their platforms. They are making billions of euro from this country and exploiting the children of this country and of the world. We need to rein in the big tech companies because it has been the wild west until now. An outright ban on social media may be well intentioned; however, it has not proven to be very effective in France or Australia. For this reason, we are proposing amendments that will work and ensure we have control over the big tech giants based just a stone's throw from this building. We can do that and we know it will or should work. The need to have proper safeguards is urgent. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children must be protected from harm, not exploited and have access to proper, accurate and truthful information. We welcome the intention behind this Bill and what it tries to do in terms of restrictions and protecting children from harm. We will bring forward amendments to improve the Bill. We support it progressing to the next Stage. I cannot understand how any Government that claims to be in favour of the rights of children could oppose regulating these big tech giants, which are basically the modern day vampires of the world.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue and thank People Before Profit-Solidarity for bringing it forward. In fact, I was in the Chamber only last night questioning the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, and highlighting alarming levels of online abuse directed at our national sporting representatives. Given that we are going into two by-elections, the people putting themselves forward for those two elections will be targeted online. Unfortunately, that is the reality. Social media, at its best, is a powerful tool. It connects, educates and empowers us, and it gives people a way to explore their interests and activities. However, over the years, we have seen the online world expand at a pace far beyond what our laws, our institutions, and even the most well-intentioned digital platforms can keep up with. While technology has evolved at lightning speed, regulation has not. Too often, laws remain relaxed, fragmented or outdated and in this gap between innovation and governance, harm has grown. Across Ireland, and indeed across the world, parents are calling for clearer and stronger action to keep children safe online. They are not calling for perfection or censorship. They are calling for basic, enforceable safeguards to protect their sons and daughters from exploitation, bullying and exposure to harmful content. We know that digital violence against women and girls is surging. We know that powerful algorithms are targeting boys with increasingly extreme and misogynistic content. We know that the online world is now an enormous part of young people’s daily lives. It is where they laugh, learn, chat, play and sometimes face pressures and dangers they do not yet have the tools to understand. Research has shown that social media algorithms can funnel boys towards misogynistic and extremist content within minutes of first using an app. What begins as a harmless interest in fitness, gaming, chatting to friends or motivation can quickly transform into violent, demeaning and hyper-aggressive content that normalises misogyny and distorts masculinity. This "aggro-rithm" in effect preys on the vulnerable, particularly people in lonely situations, and is now influencing real-world interactions, peer culture and even school behaviour. Teachers are reporting misogynistic attitudes in classrooms and playground behaviour that is being reinforced by what boys are seeing pushed upon them online. TikTok is the fastest growing platform on the planet among children and young people, yet the measures in place to protect them remain inconsistent and insufficient. We are dealing not only with harmful content but a system designed to amplify whatever keeps users engaged, regardless of its impact on safety or well-being. We need to be clear this is not about vilifying technology. It is about recognising the scale of the challenge, the pace of the danger and the responsibility we have, collectively, to act. We need robust, enforceable legislation that places clear responsibility on digital platforms, especially those targeting children. It is no longer acceptable for companies to rely on weak standards or reactive moderation. Safety cannot be optional. Age verification must be meaningful, not cosmetic. Parental controls must be clear and accessible, not buried in complicated menus or hidden entirely. Parents also cannot be passive in this. A lot of parents in their 30s or 40s, which is my own age group, grew up with social media, so it is not completely unknown to us. We need transparency. Algorithms shape what young people see, how they think and even how they interact with one another. If those algorithms are promoting misogyny, self-harm content, gambling mechanisms or predatory behaviour, then companies must be held accountable. Independent audits and mandatory risk assessments are essential. We need a cultural shift in how parents, educators and communities approach the online world. We do not need to be tech experts, but we need to be present as regards how algorithms are used to shape how we think. We must support the front-line organisations working to protect young people, researchers, youth workers and educators. They need proper funding, training and staffing to keep pace with the fast-evolving landscape. We need stronger international co-operation. It would be ideal if the EU moved quicker on this and gave us guidelines for which we could legislate. I would not see that as a bad thing because the harm travels globally and our response must be global too. Ireland has a significant role to play in shaping European and international digital safety frameworks. We must listen to young people themselves also. They are the experts in their own online experiences. Many want safer spaces, better reporting tools, clearer rules, real consequences and platforms that respect their safety as much as their data. The safety of anyone who accesses the online world is not a niche concern. It is one of the defining health issues of our time, and the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, attested to that last night during oral questions. The dangers are real. They are growing and already affecting the most vulnerable. We cannot allow algorithms to shape our children’s and young people's values more than parents, teachers and communities do. We cannot continue to rely on weak promises from platform giants while the evidence of harm increases all around us. It is essential that children and adults are protected in digital spaces and on social media platforms by preventing recommender system algorithms from targeting or manipulating them. To achieve this, we need to introduce effective new regulations, and legislation where necessary. Coimisiún na Meán must take a proactive role in regulating online safety and updating the digital safety code. Platforms must be held accountable when they fail to implement adequate safety measures. We need to work to make primary and secondary schools smartphone-free, strengthen online safety education, and ensure digital literacy becomes a core pillar of the education system. We must also support parents and schools by investing in public awareness campaigns and well-being training. Finally, dedicated resources should be allocated to a public health research programme examining the impact of digital devices and online platforms on children. We need to tread carefully around a blanket ban on online access for kids under 16. The online space is where many young people find connection and community. Young people reach out more online than through Childline, as they would have in the 1990s. We do not shut our children out of the real world; instead, we teach them how to navigate it safely and responsibly. We must take the same approach to the online world, guiding and equipping them to engage in what is safe and respectful. That means children who set up accounts, understand the games they play, discuss the risks, and set boundaries about private chats and unsupervised online interactions. We cannot treat the online world as separate from the real world. For children today, they are one and the same. The Internet can be a positive and empowering place but that future will not happen by accident. This will only happen when the Government and online platforms show leadership and accountability, take on regulation and, above all, give a commitment to protecting everyone's right to safety, whether online or offline because ultimately online activity manifests itself in the real world.

I have always felt that technology is a positive force in society. My career has been shaped by how technology can be harnessed for social good. Back in 1997, I did my undergraduate dissertation on the impact of the information revolution on the development of socialism, would you believe. That was back when we called it the information revolution and back when I called myself more openly a socialist. I come at this as a tech enthusiast. I love technology and I see that social media is incredibly positive in our world in so many ways, or was, and particularly for younger people. For them, as we have heard from other Deputies, there is no difference between the physical world and the online world. When we talk about solutions for the online world and compare them to the physical world, young people simply do not have that mentality. They do not have the same privacy concerns either, for example. This is something I looked at when I worked in the tech sector. Attitudes towards privacy for younger people are completely different because, largely, that horse has bolted. They have grown up and live in a very different world where privacy is a different ball game for them completely. However, the online worlds has become so toxic and harmful. This is true of the Internet more broadly, as I have discussed directly with the Minister, particularly things like chatbots that are prompting people towards suicide, some of the online radicalism we are seeing and so on. Specifically in respect of recommender algorithms, there are some specific harms around polarisation, mental health and misogyny that are being discussed this morning which have to be addressed. This is brilliant legislation which offers off by default as a starting point, and off for under-18s. That is just a starting point but it is a good and important start. I acknowledge the incredible work of Deputy Paul Murphy and People Before Profit, not just on this Bill but on the issue more broadly. I believe there is a value that Members of this House share. I have seen much hand-wringing from the Minister and Government spokespeople who seem to grapple with this issue. What I do not see is action and what I did not hear in the Minister's speech today is action. I want to touch on some of the framing he used. He stated that "the issues around recommender systems can be and are being addressed." I do not understand how anybody can stand over that when the recommender systems continue to do what they are doing. Describing the EU Digital Services Act, he said it "requires that platforms explain, in understandable language, the main parameters their systems use to suggest content, as well as providing options for users to change or influence these parameters." He further described the Act as requiring platforms "to assess and mitigate risks that their recommender systems may present, including to the protection of minors", and as obliging platforms to provide minors "the option to use recommender systems that do not rely on profiling." All of these are listed as current solutions that are out there and working. They are not working because people are still being fed promotion of anorexia - pro-ana - material. People are still being polarised. People are still being radicalised. Young men are being turned into misogynistic monsters by these tools. These are not working. If this is what the Government's solution is, it is not working. The Minister referred to preliminary findings and the need to address investigations, regulation and action. This has been going on for years. When I worked in Google between 2006 and 2014, one of the biggest topics towards the end of that period was pro-ana websites which were being promoted to young women at the time. That developed into additional issues around self-harm. I have personal, family experience of exactly how problematic and difficult that can be. To tell me that the EU is regulating it and has responded, that the Government's tools are working and the responses and solutions are there just does not wash. I read a book in 2011 by Nicholas Carr called The Shallows. It was the first time I came across the idea that the Internet is changing our brains. These algorithms are one of the biggest ways in which our brains are being rewired. The technology is rewiring us. That is why in this legislation it is so important that we single out children. They have greater plasticity within their brains and are at greater risk of that rewiring. I read that 15 years ago and I recommend it even now as a book that still stands in terms of addressing how our use of technology is affecting our cognitive function and emotional regulation. Telling me the Government is dealing with it, it is happening, it is under investigation, none of that is good enough. We need real-time solutions and they are not forthcoming. I have mentioned some of the problems. For me, polarisation is one of the biggest issues in society that is proliferated by toxic algorithms. They create a bubble whereby our own stereotypes and biases are reinforced again and again. We are losing the wonderful discourse and public discussions we have had in society because people are being pushed into camps further and further away from themselves. Misogyny has been discussed at length already today. I want to use a real-time example for that one. I was on "The Tonight Show" last night and I get the usual hate online from that. I am sure the Minister of State knows that too. I took a little look at the four first clips that were put up of me and the Minister of State, Deputy Neale Richmond, who was on the panel with me. Under the two clips of his contributions on Twitter, there are nine and three comments, respectively. Under the two clips of me, which were put up at the same time from the same show, there are 156 and 171 comments, respectively. They are not nice. There is a lot of the c-word, that one that rhymes with blunt. There is a lot about calling me a man. I am consistently transvestigated online because I talk about trans rights issues. It is horrible. It is such a clear example. I get that all politicians, all public representatives, get hate online. The Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, would have a much higher profile than I would. He has been a politician much longer than I have. Apart from the fact that maybe I have less likeability factor or something, even accounting for that, it still seems a clear example to me of misogyny and how women are bearing the brunt of these issues. The Minister has gone but I thought he might like one particular reply which was added. It said, "she is giving Patrick O'Donovan a run for his money as the biggest idiot in Leinster House." I appreciate that everybody gets it but what I am trying to demonstrate here is that there is sexism and misogyny in our society that is being fuelled, amplified and turbo-charged by these toxic algorithms. We are all living it every single day. Age verification is being put forward again and again by the Government. It is not going to work. The summary I have on that points to the privacy issues it raises, the fact that it contravenes children's rights issues, namely, the right to participate in society and particularly online, and essentially leaves behind the major issues of our day. It is arbitrary to say that, at 16, all of a sudden you are supposed to be able to read all of this hateful content and deal with it. It is simply crazy at this stage. Then we also hear, on a more general basis, the Government say that there are no solutions and that we in the Opposition are not coming up with solutions. I have been heartbroken on that recently. It happens with regard to anything we come forward with. This is a really clear, well-worked out Bill that offers a solution to a problem we all discuss all the time, and once again the Government is choosing to say "no thanks" to it. This is a solution that could work, and I urge the Government to reconsider its decision. One of the other things we need to look at is platforms as publishers. The Minister of State has raised this. Honestly, I am kind of surprised that it might be offered by this Government because it is a much larger legal question to deal with platforms as publishers. Essentially, that means they would be held to account for the content they host. For decades now there has been talk of how that could change, but it really gets to the heart of the business model of these tech platforms, which is ultimately the source of all these issues. We, the user, are the product, and as long as we remain the product we will have issues with platforms not taking on the role of publishers and we will have issues with their recommender algorithms pushing us into where they want us to be, which is eyes on screen all the time. Dealing with that user-as-the-product issue is really too big not to tackle. This Bill is exactly where we need to be in terms of pushing us towards that space of actually having regulation that might work, because the regulation we have right now is simply not working, nor are the solutions being offered at European or domestic level. I urge the Government to withdraw its amendment. I also once again ask this Government to stop supporting the digital omnibus packages making their way through the European Union because they will gut the AI Act of any meaningful impact it would have had. They will also further strip back the protections we enjoy under the GDPR. I want to hear the Government push back on the simplification agenda at European level because it is that agenda and harmonisation that are informing the Government's wish to keep this kind of self-regulatory model in existence. Littered throughout the Minister's speech is rhetoric which sounds to me like self-regulation of the tech sector, and we are not moving away from it. Certainly, the digital omnibus will push us back towards that. As a member state of the European Union, we do not have to take that as our direction of travel. We can say, "No, we want to maintain the regulation that European citizens enjoy and cherish and push back against that agenda."

I thank People Before Profit for bringing forward this long-awaited, valuable Bill. I may not always agree with Deputy Gibney but I certainly agree with a lot of what she had to say today, in fairness. I was talking recently to a politician who said there was something quite nasty put up about him online. It was something he had done, and then under the newspaper article stuff came up that was untrue. He contacted the newspaper and they said, "Do not worry about that person. We know. She puts this up all the time." I cannot understand why the newspaper allowed that up all the time if it knew about it. It should have acted on it immediately. However, we are thick-skinned, and it is well we all know we all get slated and it is a free go, as people would see it. This Bill is really about keeping our young people safe online. The Bill says that if a platform knows someone is under 18, or even if it is not sure of their age, it cannot use these personalised recommender systems on them. It puts the responsibility back on big tech companies, where it belongs. In every community, be it urban or rural, be it west Cork or Dublin city centre, parents want to know that their children are not being steered by hidden online forces. This Bill is one step towards making the online world a bit safer, a bit fairer and a bit more honest. We all know, as public representatives and as ordinary people, just how dangerous online activity can be. Every one of us has seen it. Many of us have been on the receiving end of it. The minute you stand up and say anything, suddenly the online trolls come crawling out of the woodwork. It is never just once; the same characters pop up again and again leaving nasty comments under every newspaper post, pouring poison into public discussion and trying to tear people down for sport. We all recognise them. The newspapers recognise them too. They know well when an account is not legitimate or when someone is clearly nuts. Yet nothing is done. That is not good enough any more. These platforms, including the newspapers that host the comment sections, carry a responsibility. When they stand back and do nothing and when they let the same trolls run wild day after day, they play a part in the harm and they allow abuse to continue, knowing full well what is happening right under their noses. All we are saying is simple. Everyone who benefits from putting content online, including newspapers, has to accept some responsibility for keeping that space safe because when they turn a blind eye, the damage does not disappear. It lands on real people in real communities trying to do their best. While we are talking about the online world, I want to turn to something weighing heavily on many families across the country: the situation in the Middle East. The truth is that without social media platforms and online communication, we would not have a hope of keeping up with the updates we need for our constituents. People are scared, they are stranded and they are trying to get home safely. We have people stuck all over the Middle East, terrified of what is going on around them, and all we as public representatives can do is point them towards the Irish embassies in their area and urge them to register. It is the only official channel available to them and to us. That is the reality. I am in constant contact with groups of people through WhatsApp. I set up groups-----

Deputy, could you speak to the Bill, please?

Yes. This is online. We are talking about online platforms, and only for online platforms the people of the Middle East-----

There will be statements on the Middle East as well.

Yes. I know that too. That is tomorrow evening. We have done that through our Business Committee, but this is very relevant to online platforms as well. I set up groups and I talk to them day and night, trying to keep some of them informed and reassured. Thank God they are finally getting on flights tonight and making their way home, but others are still trapped. I have people stuck in the Philippines being absolutely taken advantage of. The airline is trying to charge €10,000 per person just to get them as far as London. Families cannot afford €10,000. Nobody can. Then I have others in Sri Lanka who have no clear way of getting home at all. They are frightened, isolated and unsure where to turn.

Deputy, could you speak to the Bill, please?

Here is the point. Without online platforms and without the ability to share honest information among ourselves and to pass on updates, warnings and bits of advice, these people would be completely on their own. The only lifeline they have right now is the information we can give them online and the information they can send back to us. Yes, online spaces can be dangerous and toxic - we know that too well - but they can also be a lifeline. They can be the one thing keeping an Irish citizen thousands of miles away connected to home, connected to help and connected to hope, and that is why we have to get this right. We have to protect people from the harm that happens online while also making sure we can still use the platforms to help those who need it most. I got there.

Almost a year ago, when I raised with the Tánaiste the issue of whether we should follow the Australian model and introduce a ban for under-16s, the Tánaiste, I think it was the second time he said it, and the Minister said it as well, said, "The era of self-regulation is over." Then today in the Chamber we heard the Government say its age verification system is not mandatory for users and not mandatory for the IT companies. That, straight away, is still self-regulation. The Government criticised this Bill by saying that the recommenders might be a little more dangerous if they were switched off because then the kids might see anything. The whole point of stopping the kids from seeing anything is to make sure that kids do not have access to the information in the first place, which you either do by banning it outright, restricting it on certain platforms or creating an age verification system. It is possible to create an anonymised, randomised system that says, "Yes, I am over the age of 18. Now that I am an adult, whatever I want, as long as it is legal, is nobody else's business." No one in this Chamber is arguing that it should be anyone else's business, but in terms of children's access to information, kids as young as second class now have access to all sorts of disturbing content. I am not just talking about the eating disorder videos. You see different allegations being made that are not factually verified about all sorts of people and all sorts of rumours going around, and that is magnified among young people. We have seen the toxification of young men and damage to young women as well. That will continue unless we actually regulate this, and this is the nub. Any motion or any Bill that has better discussion and brings it forward, even if we have to amend proposals in the legislation, is a good thing. The GDPR argument is constantly used. It is said that it is restricting people. There are groups like the Irish Council for Civil Liberties rightly saying that personal information and personal rights need to be protected, but there is a balance between rights and responsibilities here. We are fighting an existential war to try to protect this and future generations. It has gotten to that level. We can argue that young people are a bit more savvy about what might be AI generated or they might disregard certain bits of information more than someone in their 70s looking at a scam on Facebook. They have that level of digital literacy but they do not have discernment capability. They should not be exposed to dangerous content in the first place. In some ways, I was almost thinking we should be like Marty McFly and go back to the future, to the 1980s where we did not have all this IT. Unfortunately, we know the 1980s were a misogynistic and violent cesspit like we have today. The 1990s were just as bad. There was bullying in all shapes and forms. I remember in the 1980s somebody's underwear was photocopied in the school and circulated around on a piece of paper. There was bullying through physical attacks, bullying by whispers in the corner and bullying by notes put through the letterbox. That sort of behaviour will continue because as well as being intrinsically good, we have intrinsically stupid and evil human beings as well. Social media has magnified that to multiple proportions. The techbros, the Metas, the TikToks, the Xs and Roblox are all governed by profit. The AI-generated material being spewed out, affecting our electricity grids and pushing up our energy bills, is making profit for them. It is equivalent to the 1950s when the Philip Morris company and other cigarette companies knew that cigarettes were causing cancer but they did everything they could to spew out misinformation. The companies involved in this know exactly what they are doing. They know exactly the damage. The studies are out there. It is not like every time we talk about studies from DCU or other institutions that we are learning this for the first time. We have known this for several years now. We fine them but the fines are not enough. The fines are not being paid. At this stage we should be taking the bull by the horns and saying that if they are not paying the fines, then they will be switched off. Why not have a European Facebook or TikTok where you have freedom of speech but also responsibility and regulation? Even on Facebook now they allow nicknames, and I have seen serious misinformation propagated about people taking their own lives that has been stated as fact and caused serious harm to families. It is being allowed because of nicknames. We do not have responsible moderators, so that will continue. We need to deal with this.

It is important for me to outline the changing landscape we are seeing for young people on social media and the impact recommender algorithms are having on them. In my generation, when we went into secondary school we still had phones where you could call and text people and that was the extent of it. By the time we were in junior certificate, everyone had a smartphone. Everyone had Instagram and everyone had Snapchat. The entire landscape of being a teenager completely changed at that point. That was a time when if you went on Facebook you only saw what your friends posted. When you went on Instagram you saw your best friends’ posts of their day out with their friends, some event they were at or some trip they took with their family. It was wholesome, warm and a great space to be in and it was exciting as a teenager because we could see all of the good things our friends were doing. You could have easy access to your friends and easy communication. Do not get me wrong. That brought severe issues for young people. It brought severe bullying and issues of social pressure to post on these platforms. Teenagers do everything they can to try to fit in, so everyone partook. The real issue is that since 2014 or 2015, TikTok has taken off and all mainstream social media platforms have adopted essentially rabbit-hole algorithms where young people can get funnelled into an ideology and do not even know why they agree with what they are agreeing with. Naturally, the further down the rabbit hole you go the more dangerous it gets. It pushes you to more extreme points of view because that is what holds your attention and that is what holds you on the platform. The problem is that whatever your initial belief is you end up pursuing a further and more extreme belief because the algorithm will push you down that rabbit hole so far that you continue to engage with it. To the point that people sometimes will not appreciate or engage with other points of view because hardened lines are drawn, what is important here is our teenagers and young people need to have an opportunity to grow up in a world where they can form their own opinions and ideas and critically think about and evaluate what is in front of them. The landscape before them right now is not fit for that and the landscape is pushing this toxic material in front of them and ultimately leading them to engage with it more. The companies have a responsibility but as legislators we have to protect our young people. In Galway East there is a company called Think Smart digital run by Aoife Noone. She is engaging with communities across Galway East and the broader country. She holds events to educate parents on what is happening on the phones of their teenagers. She has sold out ten halls across Galway East for between 100 and 300 people. Parents have no idea what is going on inside the bedrooms of their children on the phone. The parents do not have a clue about the information there and some of the material they are exposed to because the parents did not grow up in that world. They only know the world in front of them on their phone but the phone their child is experiencing could be completely different. It is vital that this Government supports the education of parents so that parents can help to put safeguards in place for their own children as well, and can have open and honest conversations with their children about the material they have been exposed to, are being exposed to, stuff being sent around the school or incidents that have happened in the school. I do not know if that is happening at the moment, and I do not know if parents realise the extent of how bad it is. I know Coimisiún na Meán is a positive establishment, and I know it will be outlining how the Digital Services Act at European level will be introduced and rolled out here at Irish level. However, it is important that we show leadership and lead from the front. We need to seriously consider a ban on social media for under 16s. It has to be considered. Australia showed leadership on it. France has followed suit. Why would Ireland not step up to say it will protect its young people and get them off these toxic platforms? I am not saying that the platforms are entirely toxic either. There is a lot of good content and a lot of great ways to connect with like-minded people. It is about making sure there is fairness on the landscape.

I am glad to get the opportunity to speak. I thank Deputy Boyd-Barrett for bringing this to our attention. We all agree that online safety for our youngsters is of paramount importance. Our youngsters are our future, and we need to protect our future by protecting our youngsters. This is so important. It is hard for young couples rearing children today to get them to crawl and to walk and all the things before them but this is really hard for many parents to understand. Like Deputy Dolan said, we did not have to go through this. We did not have the problems that are being loaded on our young society. I agree we need to bring in laws to deal with these platforms that are just in it to make money and fortunes for themselves on the backs of our children. Connectivity is so important. I believe that youngsters up to 16 years of age should have a mobile phone, maybe something like my own that is of no harm and has no ridiculous content or bad stuff like we know is available at present. We know youngsters are bullied and have been bullied. They have committed suicide as a result. We know this and it is a terrible and awful thing altogether that we have got to know about in recent years. I never understood that such a thing could happen. As Deputy Dolan said, we as parents do not know what is going on in the rooms or behind the doors where children are. We do not know what is going on. More parents need to be educated to understand better. Generally, people out there are outraged with what is happening and the way people are taken over completely by some of these online platforms. While they may know what is going on at the other end of the world, and there is great value and education to be had from these platforms and these iPhones, I am worried that youngsters are online but do not know what is going on around them. They forget to talk to their parents, their siblings and their grandparents. We all benefited from those things and grew up in a normal way, where everyone belonging to us came first rather than some of these things that happen on the other side of the world. Online abuse is another thing that is terrible. I have not suffered from it but I know that other politicians and people have suffered a lot from this anonymous online abuse where people can put up terrible things about their families and create so much distress. It can trigger suicide and other problems and puts people down in a big way. We need to deal with this, whatever the Government comes up with. The Government needs to do this because it is very important. As I said at the start, our children are our future. We need to keep this rubbish away from them until they are at least 16 or 17 years of age. Let them have connectivity with an ordinary phone, or an iPhone if these platforms can be taken off it. We need to leave them have connectivity with their friends and parents in case they need assistance. We need to maintain that, but we have to bring forward a Bill to deal properly with this and we all need to support it.

I thank Deputies Gibney, Gogarty, Healy-Rae and Dolan, who spoke so eloquently about this issue. I also thank People Before Profit and Deputies Boyd Barrett and Murphy for tabling this incredibly important Bill. It comes with a backdrop where we have all been subjected to abuse, as Sinéad was last night. I have been subjected to it myself, as has everybody in the House and particularly women. I do not think the gentlemen in the Chamber would disagree wthat women do face an increased amount of abuse online. I have been at the coalface of it and did what we think we should do, which is report it to An Garda Síochána. I had to report it on a number of occasions. It was perpetrated by an individual who was not faceless. An Garda Síochána investigated it further and sent it to the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, to see whether it would prosecute, and the DPP decided against it. That individual felt emboldened enough by this to put a selfie up on Facebook with a pint of Guinness saying, "Niamh Smyth, you're a [you can guess what word he used] and I won". They were his words, "I won". I use this anecdote because everybody in the Chamber has felt it in one way or another. Our job is to ensure that our kids do not have to go through this or should not be subjected to it. Deputy Dolan comes from a generation where he has grown up with it and he used it at a time when it was not as toxic as it is today. As one of our colleagues in the Labour Party spoke about earlier, it was a place where people could engage with communities and people. It was like the playground for teenagers. In recent times, it really has gone into the gutter in certain respects and aspects. We need to address that. I am very thankful to People Before Profit for tabling the Bill on the recommender algorithms. We have a body of work to do on this. I am personally in favour. It is in the remit of the Department of the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, which is a different Department from mine, so I am speaking on my own behalf. Age verification is incredibly important. The European Commission is doing great work on this with the Digital Services Act but I have seen what they have done in France, who have powered ahead and taken it upon themselves nationally to bring in age verification. As member states we have to show the courage of our conviction and look at that and perhaps do it in an individual way as states to try to push this on with the Commission. That said, we have Coimisiún na Meán, which was established to look in depth into these issues to see how we can best address them and to try to address them at both a national and a European level. Online safety is a priority issue for the Government and for me particularly as I have responsibility for digitalisation and AI. As mentioned earlier, online safety will be front and centre during Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Our colleague in the Labour Party spoke about engaging with young people and having their voices in the conversation. This is incredibly important, but as the adults in the room, sometimes we may need to help them make the right decision by not having them exposed to this at a really young age. In the lead-up to the Presidency, we will see a youth forum take place, with young people invited to share their thoughts on online safety and how it might be enacted. The current approach is through the Digital Services Act, with the support of Coimisiún na Meán as Ireland's digital services co-ordinator. It is gathering information, collating it and sharing it with the Commission to act in the correct and proper way and, more importantly, to implement the Digital Services Act. Coimisiún na Meán is of the view that the recommender systems and their harmful effects are best addressed through the Digital Services Act, which is one of the laws that makes up Ireland's online safety framework. It came to this view as part of the process of developing the online safety code. As I have said, the Digital Services Act sets out a range of parameters by which platforms must set up their recommender systems, including options without profiling, to ensure children and young people are protected and that people's privacy is respected. Platforms must also be transparent about how they set up recommender systems. With the European Commission leading on regulation of the very large online platforms and search engines, there is a constituency for these platforms across the European Union. It must be acknowledged that this legislative framework is relatively new and the Digital Services Act has only applied since February 2024. However, the Government has ensured that Coimisiún na Meán is fully resourced, with more than 300 staff working in it. This means it is well placed to provide the support, expertise and assistance required by the European Commission to do the work it does. This is borne out in the preliminary findings made by the European Commission in its investigation into TikTok regarding the platform's recommender systems. Coimisiún na Meán supported the work of the European Commission in this regard. TikTok has a right of reply to these preliminary findings, as required by due process, but it is clear the European Commission has identified serious issues that TikTok will need to examine and assess. This demonstrates how the EU regulatory framework actively supports online safety. Introducing this Bill, with its provisions that would appear to go further than those set out by the Digital Services Act maximum harmonisation measure, would not be appropriate at this stage. The Digital Services Act, as part of Ireland's online safety framework, represents the best way to address and acknowledge the risks of recommender systems. That is why the Government cannot support the Bill. I reiterate for the benefit of the House that the Government is relentlessly committed to online safety, in particular for children and young people.

I am baffled by the speech of the Minister of State, and the Government should be ashamed of itself. It has really shown its true colours. It is paying lip service to the issue that is at stake, which is the well-being, mental health and safety of the children, young people and women who are victims of this toxic misogyny, which is not just online, as we have discovered. It gets translated into brutal physical reality, as will be evidenced in the protests that are taking place in UCD today. The Minister of State acknowledged all the horrible stuff that is directed at women and politicians. The algorithms are designed to promote self-harm, suicidal ideation, eating disorders, hate, misogyny and hatred against trans people. We can go through the list of toxic content. The Ministers say, "Well, yes, there are some harmful aspects to this, but the status quo is what we are doing. We're going to vote down your Bill and maintain the status quo ", as if anything is being doing about this, when nothing is being done about it. Anybody who cares to go online right now will find that out. The Government has decided to do nothing. It is clear what is being prioritised here, which are the profits of companies that profit from this hateful, despicable material and make money from promoting suicidal ideation, eating disorders or hate. That is evil. What some of these companies are doing is the definition of evil. The Government has decided to prioritise their profits ahead of the well-being and welfare of young people, children and women. That is shameful. There is a direct line between the Government voting down this Bill, its refusal to act against the social media and IT companies - not exclusively but mostly American multinationals - and its refusal to impose sanctions over the genocide in Gaza or to condemn what the US and Israel are doing in Iran and setting the entire Middle East on fire. It will not condemn it for the same reason, because it does not want to upset the US empire. That is it. It does not want to upset these big obscenely wealthy multinational companies that profit from this sort of divisive toxic material or the big military industrial complex that profits from setting the Middle East on fire or profits from allowing, and indeed arming and supporting, Israel's genocide in Gaza. Profit comes first, despite the most obscene crimes and the most horrible things being done, turning our world into a very dangerous place. The Government will prioritise the profits of the people who benefit from all of this. That is frankly shameful. Not only, by the way, will we not do anything about it, but we will also give them money to do it with research and development tax credits. We will give them €1.4 billion. There was another €300 billion in the previous budget. We will give them the money to research to how to do this to our children. That is what we are doing. I was at the press briefing of RTÉ workers yesterday who were fighting to defend their jobs and public service broadcasting. Do not get me wrong, I sometimes have problems with the decisions that RTÉ makes, but my God, give me RTÉ over X, Meta, Google and Facebook any day of the week. While RTÉ is being dismantled and privatised and its work is being outsourced essentially to be replaced by these guys that profit from pumping this poison at our society, our young people and so on, we will take the money off public service broadcasting and hand it to these companies. We will not say boo to them in terms of regulating stuff that the Government acknowledges is harmful, but we will not do anything about it. Even Coimisiún na Meán, which the Minister of State said is dealing with it, recommended turning off these recommender algorithms. We are not in favour of a ban, by the way. Children will get around a ban. It will actually make it more attractive. Anybody who knows anything about young people knows that. Young people, by and large, as all the polls show, do not want this stuff force-fed to them. They want to make their own decisions. Banning it is not the answer. It is about standing up to these guys and not letting them profiteer by force-feeding the poisonous stuff to our young people. Coimisiún na Meán was recommending that in the first draft of the online safety code, but it took it out because of the lobbying of the companies. We know that because it is on record that they lobbied to take it out. The Government just straightforwardly capitulates to these people because they are profiting from it, and then our society picks up the pieces in terms of our young people's well-being and mental health being assaulted by these toxic algorithms to the detriment of children, young women and vulnerable groups in our society and generally to the detriment of our society in creating a divisive toxic atmosphere which is getting ever worse. The Government should be ashamed of itself for doing this and for the priorities it has decided on but, as I said, there is a consistency in its policies.

There is a gulf between words and actions here. The Minister of State said, and I would welcome it if it was true, that the Government is relentlessly committed to online safety, but that was part of a speech that was justifying why the Government is going to vote down this Bill. I repeat that the Bill is very simple and clear. It is an answer to the torrent of toxic material that is being fed to young people in particular. It is the answer that is being called for by a wide range of organisations and experts who have looked at this issue. In theory, it looks like the Government has a relentless commitment, but that is a commitment to protecting the profits of big tech companies. It is why, at a European level, they are not standing up against the big tech lobbying operation to further deregulate and undermine the levels of protections we have at a European level. Domestically, the Government is going to vote this down on the spurious basis that it is already dealing with it under the Digital Services Act. The Minister of State referred to Article 27 of the Digital Services Act and the requirement to mitigate risks, including to minors, and the requirement that very large platforms must give an option of algorithms that do not rely on profiling. Effectively, this is light-touch regulation and it may as well be self-regulation. The big tech companies can do what they want. It is very interesting that in the senior Minister's speech, which we heard earlier, there was a line of argument that was pretty much directly taken from the tech companies' lobbying. The tech companies' lobbying that resulted in this proposal being taken out of the online safety code said that recommender systems play an important role in ensuring a safe, predictable and trusted online environment by ensuring that users are connected to relevant and high-quality information. The Minister stated that recommender systems and algorithms serve to protect people, including children and young people, from harmful content. The companies know that is not true. A report from Meta's internal research stated that 64% of all extremist group joins were due to its recommendation tools and that its recommendation systems grow the problem. A 2019 internal Meta document affirmed that content moderation was impossible and that the focus should instead be on stopping artificial amplification. The parallels with big tobacco are clear in terms of the harms being done to young people and the fact these people know all about it and know about the profits they are making from it. The Minister said the algorithms are preferable to the unknown risk of switching off those recommender systems. That is bizarre. Deputy Albert Dolan, who is a backbench Fianna Fáil TD, precisely described what will happen if the algorithm system is turned off. We will go back to a space where our social media feeds are curated by us. We will get to choose who we see. We will have a wholesome space of seeing our friends, community, etc., as opposed to toxic, misogynistic content being fed to young people.

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is deferred until the weekly division time this evening.