Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair. I am in Leinster House. I am trying to keep an eye on the Joint Committee on Justice through the monitor as well. I have been listening intently while watching a muted operation from the other committee room. I have a number of questions. They are probably somewhat similar to my colleagues' earlier lines of questioning. However, I will first welcome our guests and thank them for their presentations. Nothing I am going to say is a reflection on them as individuals, but I have to confess that I have a rather jaundiced view of the social media platforms. It is not fair to target one. Many people are active across multiple platforms; it is the cumulative impact we should be concerned about. On that impact, it is not as if the jury is out; the jury is in. My colleague Senator Mary Seery Kearney outlined in graphic detail what the jury has found in respect of the impact of social media.

I put that on one side and then look at the content of our guest's presentations, which, if they were being scored by media advisers, would tick all the boxes in terms of the terminology used, such as trust and transparency, empowerment, content moderation, etc. These are all of the buzzwords we want to hear. The truth is that the jury is in. Enormous quantifiable damage is being done. There is widespread concern about unquantifiable damage in terms of cognitive impairment, particularly because of the age at which young people are active on social media platforms, and the consequences of the level of engagement. It is nothing strange for young people to be on social media platforms for six, seven or eight hours per day and that is not healthy. I contrast the presentations the committee received with both the jury findings and the awaited fears we have in terms of the impact social media is having on individual citizens, children and society at large. It is corrosive and worrying. In a way, this level of engagement is useful only up to a point and, as legislators and for our regulators, we need to be much more aggressive.

In that context I have a couple of questions. Much is made of the digital age of consent in Ireland bieng 16 but a person being legally able to open an account on TikTok, Snapchat or whatever at the age of 13. Is there a case to be made for an alignment between the age of digital consent and the age at which people should be allowed to open an account? The point was made that so many million people were taken off some platform as a vindication of the company's commitment but nobody should be on a platform if they are underage. There is no evidence that the State gives a driver's licence to 12- or 13-year-olds so why should we allow or accept a situation where a social media company can say that it did not validate the application properly but the child told the company he or she was 13 or 16 years old? There are ways and means. If social media companies were serious about this, they could verify and validate applications and disallow accounts that are not valid. The business end of social media is about the number of accounts held and the attractiveness of those accounts to advertisers.

I confess I will take it with a grain of salt but I would be interested in the witnesses' response on the issue of digital age of consent and the alignment with the age to open an account and how, notwithstanding all of the advances in technology, artificial intelligence and so on, people can still draw a coach and four through the application process and say "I am 13" or "I am 16" when they are eight years old, and open an account. It is just absurd we accept that kind of ráiméis as an explanation for non-compliance with the law. I fear the damage being done as a consequence of early interaction on social media platforms is both quantified and unquantifiable, if those are not mutually exclusive terms. I believe that much of the damage we know is being done will be far outweighed by the damage we are not yet aware of in terms of cognitive impairment in particular.

My second question is in respect of advertising on social media platforms. Less than 12 months ago, An Garda Síochána appeared before the Committee on Justice to discuss this issue. Most of us have seen cases before the courts in recent times of money mules who have been recruited by advertising on social media platforms to make available their bank accounts in order that money laundering is made much easier. The money is popped into the account and popped out to another bank account and young people, unwittingly and unknowingly, who have been targeted on social media platforms through advertising are before the courts.

This can lead to criminal records and all of the consequences that flow from those. My question around placing advertisements on social media platforms is somewhat akin to the issue of opening an account. What is the level of validation used by social media platforms when somebody wants to advertise on their platforms? How is it that these criminals can advertise on social media platforms, and can recruit - I think the terminology used is "herders" - unsuspecting, innocent teenagers as young as 15 years of age to have their bank accounts used for criminal purposes? What information do the social media platforms have on these people? Do they share that information with law enforcement in Ireland, with An Garda Síochána, and across the world with law enforcement in general? Should it not be the case that advertising for those purposes should not be allowed on platforms? Are the platforms obliged to identify a legal entity or an individual as somebody with a passport and PPS number before they can place an advertisement on social media platforms? Those are my questions for the moment.