Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Prepared by: Dr. Stephen Johnson Submitted to: Dr. Kimorley Humphrey (Director ) Enabling Environment in Health & Client Services Ministry of Health & Wellness
Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ............................................................................................ ii List of Tables ............................................................................................ iii Executive Summary................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Survey ............................................................................1 What the Jamaican Public Wants ...........................................................1 Where Support Is Strongest and Where It Is Weakest ..............................2 Principles for a Pragmatic, Sustainable Policy ........................................2 Recommendations ................................................................................3 Introduction ............................................................................................ 11 Background and Rationale ....................................................................... 13 Global Regulatory Models for Protecting Minors in Digital Environments .... 14 Implications for Minors and Possible Disadvantages ............................ 16 Methodology ........................................................................................... 21 Target Population ................................................................................ 21 Data Collection ................................................................................... 21 Sampling Approach ............................................................................. 21 Stage One: Stratified Random Selection of Enumeration Districts ......... 22 Parish-Level Allocation Using Population Proportionate to Size ............. 23 Demographic Quota Stratification ........................................................ 24 Sample Precision ................................................................................ 25 Public Perceptions of Social Media Regulation for Minors in Jamaica ......... 26 Discussion of Findings............................................................................. 59 References ............................................................................................. 65 Appendix ................................................................................................ 67 Stakeholder Power/Interest Grid .............................................................. 69
Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Jamaica's Social Media Governance Framework ................................3 Figure 2 - Social Media Platforms Used by Respondents .................................26 Figure 3 - Reported Reasons Minors Use Social Media ....................................27 Figure 4 - Reported Social Media Experiences of Minors in Respondents’ Care in the Past 12 Months.................................................. 28 Figure 5 - Attitudes Toward Social Media Regulation for Minors .......................29 Figure 6 - Support for Regulatory Measures to Protect Minors Online ..............32 Figure 7 - Perceived Impact of Social Media Regulation for Minors ..................34 Figure 8 - Guardian Practices for Managing Minors’ Social Media Use ..............36 Figure 9 - Trust in Institutions and Stakeholders for Minors’ Online Safety .......38 Figure10 - Respondents’ Views on Compliance and Public Support for Regulation .................................................................40 Figure 11 - Preferred Lead Responsibility for Minors’ Safety on Social Media in Jamaica .................................................................42 Figure 12 - Overall Support for Government Regulation of Minors’ Social Media Use in Jamaica .........................................................43 Figure 13 - Support for Government Regulation of Minors’ Social Media Use by Generation ....................................................................44 Figure 14 - Support for Government Regulation of Minors’ Social Media Use by Education Level ............................................45 Figure 15 - Preferred Approach to Regulating Minors’ Social Media Use by Education Level ................................................46 Figure 16 - Preferred Approach to Regulating Minors’ Social Media Use by Age Group .....................................................................47 Figure 17 - Preferred Approach to Regulating Minors’ Social Media Use by Respondent Role ...........................................................49 Figure 18 - Support for Government Regulation of Minors’ Social Media Use by Respondent Role ...........................................50 Figure 19 - Preferred Regulatory Priorities by Respondent Role .......................52 Figure 20 - Preferred Regulatory Priority by Age Group ....................................54 Figure 21 - Preferred Ways to Regulate Minors’ Social Media Use in Jamaica ...56 Figure 22 - Concerns About Regulating Social Media Use for Minors ................57 Figure 23 - Additional Comments on Regulating Social Media Use for Minors ..58
Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Table 1: Possible path forward...................................................................................... 9 Table 2: Comparative Overview of International Approaches to Social Media Age Restrictions ............................................................................... 19 Table 3: Parish-Level Sample Allocation Using Population Proportionate to Size (2022 Census) ................................................. 23 Table 4: Sample Stratification by Generation, Education Level, and Gender ................. 24 Table 5: Parental consent for minors .......................................................................... 30 Table 6: Stakeholder matrix ....................................................................................... 69 LIST OF TABLES
1 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on the evidence, Cabinet should authorise the immediate drafting of a national policy framework, anchored in legislation, governing minors’ use of social media in Jamaica. The framework should be built on a shared-responsibility model that places parents, schools and government in coordinated, mutually reinforcing roles; should prioritise measures Jamaica can enforce domestically before measures that depend on the cooperation of overseas platforms; and should be implemented in phases, starting with public education and digital literacy ahead of legal and enforcement provisions. This directive is grounded in a nationally representative survey of 1,027 adults across 42 enumeration districts and reflects what Jamaicans are actually prepared to support, not assumptions about what they want. Purpose of the Survey The survey was commissioned to close a local evidence gap. Jamaican policy debate on minors’ online safety has so far been driven by anecdote, parental concern and international precedent rather than by direct measurement of public attitudes. The study assessed how Jamaicans perceive minors’ social media use and exposure to online harm, the extent to which they support government regulation and specific regulatory measures, the institutions they trust to act, their willingness to comply, and the concerns that could limit acceptance of a new policy. The intent was to give policymakers a factual basis for legislation, rather than a basis built on assumption. What the Jamaican Public Wants Support for government regulation of minors’ social media use is decisive: 90.2% of respondents support it, against only 2.9% opposed. 83.9% agree that Jamaica needs a clear policy framework. However, the public does not want government to act alone. Asked who should lead on protecting minors online, 40.5% named parents/guardians and 39.1% named shared responsibility across stakeholders; only 12.7% chose government alone. When asked to choose a regulatory model, a balanced approach combining regulation with parent training was the leading choice among social media users (45.2%), parents (44.9%) and caregivers (44.7%) well ahead of strong legal restrictions alone. Support for specific measures is strongest where it is most enforceable domestically: removal of harmful content within a set timeframe (93.4%), platform penalties for non-removal (93.2%), and school-based digital literacy (92.8%).
2 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Where Support Is Strongest and Where It Is Weakest Support is strongest among Baby Boomers and Gen X (95-96%), respondents with a Bachelor’s degree (97.2%), and adults who are parents or regular caregivers of minors (93-94%). Support is comparatively weaker though still a clear majority among Gen Z (76.8-80.8%, with the highest neutral and opposed shares of any age group), non- parents (85.9% versus 93.6% for parents), adults with no regular caregiving role for minors (83.3% versus 94.0%), and respondents with a diploma/associate-level education (86.8%, the lowest of any education band). These groups are not opposed to regulation; they are simply the most likely to register doubt, and they should be the focus of public education and consultation, including structured input from minors themselves. Principles for a Pragmatic, Sustainable Policy • Build on shared responsibility, not government alone. Public trust in government to regulate fairly sits at only 33-34%, well below trust in schools (43.6%) and parents (42.6%). Legislation should formally distribute responsibility across parents, schools, government and platforms rather than position the state as sole enforcer. • Legislate what Jamaica can enforce first. Domestic measures digital literacy in schools, parent training, reporting and referral pathways, child- protection procedures, should be the immediate legal priority. Platform- facing provisions should be framed as cooperation Jamaica will seek, not compliance Jamaica can guarantee, since most platforms have no local presence. • Safeguard privacy within any age-verification provision. Data privacy is the public’s leading concern (32.6%) and trust in age-verification technology is low (21.5%). Any statutory age-verification mechanism must include data-minimisation, retention limits and misuse safeguards. • Sequence implementation in three phases. Phase one: digital literacy, parent education, public awareness and reporting pathways. Phase two: age-related safeguards, privacy standards and formal platform engagement. Phase three: enforcement, statutory review and adjustment, reported publicly on a fixed schedule. • Pursue platforms regionally, not unilaterally. Jamaica should engage major platforms jointly through CARICOM to gain leverage that a single small market cannot achieve alone, while proceeding immediately with the domestic measures above.
3 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Recommendations Social media regulation for minors in Jamaica should be built around what Jamaica can realistically control, while still placing pressure on social media companies to take child safety seriously. The survey shows strong public support for regulation, with 90.2% of respondents supporting the Government of Jamaica regulating social media use for minors. At the same time, the policy response has to be practical. Most of the major platforms used by Jamaicans are owned and operated outside Jamaica, and even larger and more powerful countries have had di�iculty getting full compliance from global technology companies. Jamaica should therefore avoid a model that depends mainly on forcing overseas platforms to act. 1. Develop a national framework based on shared responsibility Jamaica should develop a national framework for minors’ social media use that sets out the responsibilities of parents, schools, government agencies, child protection actors and platforms. The framework should cover parental consent, age-related safeguards, harmful content, privacy protection, digital literacy, reporting systems and platform engagement. This recommendation is supported by the finding that 83.9% agreed Jamaica needs a clear policy framework for minors’ social media use. It also reflects the finding that Figure 1: Jamaica's Social Media Governance Framework
4 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 40.5% of respondents selected parents/guardians as the lead actor in protecting minors online, while 39.1% selected shared responsibility among all stakeholders. Government alone was selected by 12.7%. The framework should therefore place government in a coordinating and standard-setting role, not as the only actor responsible for children’s online safety. 2. Separate what Jamaica can enforce from what requires platform cooperation The policy should make a clear distinction between domestic measures Jamaica can enforce directly and platform measures that may depend on cooperation. Jamaica can act more directly in areas such as public education, school-based digital literacy, parent training, child protection reporting, privacy standards for local systems, and procedures for handling online harm involving minors. Measures aimed at overseas platforms need a di�erent treatment. Jamaica may set expectations for harmful content reporting, age-related safeguards, privacy settings and faster response times, but enforcement may be limited where the platform has no local o�ice, assets, sta� or legal representative. The framework should therefore avoid making promises that depend entirely on overseas companies complying. It should state clearly that platform-facing measures will require formal engagement, regional cooperation and international pressure. 3. Build local protections that do not depend on foreign platforms Jamaica should prioritise measures that can work locally even when platforms are slow to respond. This includes school-based digital literacy, parent education, public awareness, reporting pathways, counselling referrals, child protection procedures and guidance for schools. This approach fits the survey findings. Support for school-based digital literacy stood at 92.8%, while public education campaigns for parents stood at 91.3%. These are measures Jamaica can implement without waiting on global platforms. They also respond to the reported uses of social media among minors, including school/learning at 75.9%, entertainment at 72.5%, communication at 62.6% and gaming-related interaction at 48.5%. 4. Strengthen parent and guardian training Parent and guardian training should sit at the centre of the response. The data shows that many guardians already use some form of supervision, but not always in the same way. Setting clear rules was reported as often or always by 62.0%, monitoring by 57.4%, enforcing consequences by 57.1%, using parental controls or privacy settings by 55.2%, and discussing online risks by 50.3%. Training should help parents and guardians set rules, use privacy settings, recognise online harm, respond to
5 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 cyberbullying or grooming, and talk with children about online risks. This also fits the preferred approach data, where balanced regulation supported by parent training was the leading option among social media users at 45.2%, parents of minors at 44.9%, and respondents who care for, supervise or regularly interact with minors at 44.7%. 5. Make school-based digital literacy a core policy measure School-based digital literacy should be introduced or strengthened across the education system. Schools had the highest trust level among the listed stakeholders, at 43.6%, and support for school-based digital literacy programmes was 92.8%. The programme should cover privacy, misinformation, cyberbullying, online scams, harmful challenges, digital footprints, reporting tools, screen time, and respectful online behaviour. It should also reflect the platforms respondents reported using most: WhatsApp at 20.7%, YouTube at 16.7%, TikTok at 16.5%, Instagram at 13.4% and Facebook at 10.3%. Children’s online safety cannot be taught only around public posting. It also has to address group chats, private messages, forwarded content and video-based platforms. 6. Create a realistic platform engagement strategy Jamaica should engage major platforms through formal reporting channels, child- safety contact points, regional partnerships and public accountability measures. The Government should seek cooperation on harmful content involving minors, faster escalation for serious cases, stronger privacy settings, age-related safeguards and transparency around reports from Jamaica. The wording here is important. Jamaica should not frame this only as “requiring platforms” to act, because many of these companies sit outside Jamaica’s direct enforcement reach. A stronger and more defensible approach is to say that Jamaica should set national child-safety expectations, seek formal cooperation, and work with regional partners to increase pressure on platforms. Where platforms do not cooperate, Jamaica should still publish clear public guidance, document non-responsiveness, and use regional and diplomatic channels to raise the issue. 7. Do not rely on platform self-regulation The findings do not support a self-regulation-only approach. Social media companies had the lowest trust level among the listed stakeholders, at 16.1%, while 45.6% reported no trust. Respondents also strongly supported action against harmful content, with 93.4% supporting removal of harmful content a�ecting minors within a set timeframe and 93.2% supporting penalties for companies that fail to remove harmful content involving minors within a set timeframe. However, penalties against overseas platforms may not always be easy to apply. The policy should therefore use a mixed approach: platform cooperation where possible, public reporting where cooperation fails, and strong domestic systems to support minors, parents and
6 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 schools. Jamaica should not rely on platforms to police themselves, but it should also not build a system that collapses if platforms refuse or delay action. 8. Handle age verification with caution Age verification and parental consent should be considered, but they should not be introduced without privacy safeguards. Agreement with mandatory age verification stood at 87.5%, and requiring parental consent for minors below a certain age to open accounts received 89.9% agreement. Age verification/restriction was also the second most selected open-ended option for regulating minors’ social media use in Jamaica, at 14.8%. At the same time, data privacy and safety was the most common concern about regulation, at 32.6%. Trust in technology-based age verification systems was also low, at 21.5%, with 40.1% reporting no trust. Any age verification system should collect as little data as possible, limit data retention, restrict data sharing and protect minors’ information from misuse. Jamaica should avoid creating a system that protects children from online harm while exposing them to new privacy risks. 9. Focus enforcement on serious harm involving minors Enforcement should focus on serious online harm rather than ordinary social media use. The reported experiences of minors included sleep loss, anxiety or emotional distress at 16.9%, exposure to violent or disturbing content at 16.8%, exposure to sexual content at 16.5%, harmful misinformation or dangerous online challenges at 12.9%, unwanted sexual messages or grooming at 9.1%, cyberbullying or harassment at 7.2%, sharing private images or information without consent at 6.6%, and scams, blackmail or fraud at 5.6%. The policy should therefore prioritise grooming, sexual exploitation, cyberbullying, threats, non-consensual sharing of private images, scams, blackmail, violent content and harmful challenges. A narrow focus on serious harm would also reduce the risk of overreach and respond to concerns about privacy, fairness, access and freedom of expression. 10. Use public education before enforcement Public education should begin before any major enforcement measures are introduced. Respondents strongly agreed that regulation can only work if the public is properly educated about it, at 87.6%. Public education should explain what the regulation is intended to do, what parents and guardians are expected to do, how minors’ rights will be protected, and where reports can be made. It should also explain the limits of government power over foreign platforms. This is necessary because public expectations may be unrealistic if people assume the Government of Jamaica can simply order TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook or WhatsApp to comply in every case. Public education should be honest about what can be done locally and what depends on platform cooperation.
7 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 11. Work through CARICOM and other regional channels Jamaica should not approach major technology companies only as a single small market. A regional approach through CARICOM and other Caribbean mechanisms would likely carry more weight. Regional cooperation could support common child- safety standards, shared reporting concerns, joint engagement with platforms and stronger bargaining power. This does not mean Jamaica should wait for the region before acting. Jamaica can move ahead with local education, reporting and child protection measures while also building regional pressure around platform accountability. A regional route is especially useful for issues that no small state can handle e�ectively on its own.` 12. Phase the implementation and review it regularly The framework should be introduced in phases. Respondents supported regulation, but they also recognised practical problems. A majority agreed that regulation would be di�icult to enforce in Jamaica, at 66.3%. A high share also agreed that minors would likely find ways around regulation, at 87.0%, while 80.7% agreed that poorly designed regulation could create problems. The first phase should focus on digital literacy, parent education, public awareness and reporting pathways. The second phase should introduce age-related safeguards, privacy standards and platform engagement. The third phase should deal with enforcement, review and adjustment. The Government should publish periodic updates on what is working, what is not working, and where platform cooperation remains weak. 13. Include minors in the consultation process Minors should be included in the consultation process in a structured and age- appropriate way. Gen Z recorded the lowest support for government regulation among the age groups, at 76.8%, with 17.3% neutral/unsure and 5.9% opposed. Respondents also strongly agreed that minors would likely try to bypass restrictions, at 89.2%. Including minors would help policymakers understand how children and young people use platforms, why they may resist restrictions, and what kinds of guidance may work in practice. Their input should not replace adult responsibility, but it can help prevent a policy that looks strong on paper and fails in everyday use.
8 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026
9 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Strategic Objective What Must Be Done Lead Agency Establish a National Policy Framework Draft and approve a comprehensive policy governing minors' social media use, rights, responsibilities, safeguards, and enforcement mechanisms. MOHW, Ministry responsible for Information and Digital Transformation Create a Shared Responsibility Governance Model Establish a formal governance structure defining the roles of parents, schools, government, child protection agencies, and digital platforms. Cabinet O�ice Strengthen Digital Literacy in Schools Integrate digital citizenship, online safety, cyberbullying awareness, misinformation detection, and responsible social media use into the curriculum. Ministry of Education Implement Parent Education Programmes Develop national parent training and awareness initiatives on social media supervision, parental controls, cyberbullying, grooming, and digital wellbeing. OCA Establish Child Online Safety Reporting Mechanisms Create a coordinated reporting and referral pathway for online harms a�ecting minors. OCA Table 1: Possible path forward Develop Privacy and Data Protection Safeguards Ensure any age-verification or online protection mechanism complies with privacy and data protection principles. Ministry of Legal and Constitutional A�airs Engage Social Media Platforms Establish formal engagement with major platforms regarding content moderation, child safety, reporting procedures, and harmful content removal. Ministry of Foreign A�airs and Foreign Trade Develop Age Assurance Standards Assess feasible age-verification and parental consent mechanisms suitable for Jamaica. Ministry of Science, Energy, Telecommunications and Transport Strengthen Child Protection Response Capacity Train frontline child protection o�icers, teachers, counsellors, and police o�icers to identify and respond to online harms. CPFSA Establish Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Develop indicators to track online harms, compliance, awareness, reporting patterns, and e�ectiveness of interventions. PIOJ Conduct Public Awareness Campaigns Launch a sustained national communication campaign promoting digital safety and responsible online behaviour. OCA
10 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Supporting Agencies Key Milestone Key Risk OCA, MOEYI, Ministry of Justice, Broadcasting Commission, OUR National Policy Framework approved by Cabinet Stakeholder disagreement on scope of regulation OCA, MOEYI, Child Protection and Family Services Agency (CPFSA), Broadcasting Commission Governance framework formally adopted Duplication of responsibilities and weak coordination Schools, NCEL, OCA, CPFSA National digital literacy curriculum developed and deployed Curriculum overload and inadequate teacher capacity CPFSA, Churches, Schools, Parent Associations, NGOs National parenting toolkit and campaign launched Low parental participation CPFSA, JCF CISOCA, MOEYI National reporting protocol established Under-reporting due to lack of awareness O�ice of the Information Commissioner, Data Protection Unit Privacy framework approved Public distrust regarding surveillance e Broadcasting Commission, CARICOM Secretariat Formal engagement mechanism established Limited leverage over multinational companies Data Protection Authorities, OCA National age-assurance framework completed Technology reliability concerns and privacy fears OCA, JCF, MOEYI National training programme implemented Resource limitations STATIN, OCA, MOEYI National monitoring framework established Insu�icient data sharing across agencies JIS, Broadcasting Commission, Churches, Schools National campaign launched Public fatigue and declining engagement
11 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 INTRODUCTION Social media has become one of the main spaces in which children and teenagers learn, communicate, entertain themselves, and build social relationships. For many minors, it is no longer separate from everyday life. It is connected to schoolwork, peer interaction, gaming, popular culture, family communication, and access to information. This makes the question of regulation more complex than a simple argument for or against social media use. Any discussion of regulation has to recognise that minors are using these platforms in ways that are both useful and risky. In Jamaica, public concern about minors' online safety has grown against a wider backdrop of increasing digital dependence, changing family supervision patterns, and greater exposure to online environments that are often di�icult for parents and guardians to monitor e�ectively. Children and adolescents are increasingly exposed to a range of online risks, including violent or disturbing content, sexually explicit material, cyberbullying, online grooming, sextortion, scams, harmful misinformation, and algorithmically amplified content that can influence behaviour, beliefs, and emotional wellbeing. Social media also exposes young people to pressures related to appearance, popularity, social comparison, and the constant need for online validation, all of which have been associated with anxiety, depression, low self- esteem, body image concerns, and problematic social media use. From a physical health perspective, excessive screen time has been linked to reduced physical activity, sedentary behaviour, sleep disruption, eye strain, musculoskeletal discomfort, and unhealthy lifestyle patterns that may contribute to obesity and other non-communicable diseases. While some of these risks are readily observed by parents and guardians, many occur in private digital spaces, are normalised within peer networks, or remain undisclosed until significant psychological, social, or physical harm has already occurred. At the same time, regulation raises its own concerns. Measures such as age verification, content removal, platform reporting, parental controls, and restrictions on access may be supported as child protection tools, but they also create questions about privacy, freedom of expression, data security, fairness, enforcement, and institutional trust. A policy designed to protect minors can lose public confidence if people believe it gives the state too much control, requires excessive personal information, unfairly limits access to online opportunities, or cannot be enforced consistently. This report examines public perceptions of social media regulation for minors in Jamaica. It looks at how respondents understand minors’ social media use, the harms they associate with that use, the kinds of regulatory measures they support, and the actors they believe should carry responsibility. The analysis also considers trust in government, schools, parents and guardians, child protection agencies, the police and justice system, social media companies, and technology-based age verification systems. The findings show that public opinion is not one-dimensional. Respondents express strong support for protecting minors online and for some form of government
12 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 regulation, but they also recognise practical and rights-based concerns. Many support parental involvement, school-based digital literacy, platform accountability, public education, and age-related safeguards. Yet there is caution around implementation, privacy, surveillance, government overreach, and the likelihood that minors may find ways around restrictions. The value of this study is that it moves beyond general statements about whether regulation is needed. It provides a clearer picture of what Jamaicans appear willing to support, where they place responsibility, which institutions they trust, and what concerns may shape public acceptance. This is especially important in a policy area where child protection, family responsibility, platform design, state authority, and digital rights all meet.
13 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Social media has become part of the everyday setting in which minors learn, communicate, entertain themselves, and maintain relationships. For many children and teenagers, online activity is no longer limited to leisure. It is tied to schoolwork, peer interaction, family contact, gaming, information-seeking, and participation in youth culture. That makes regulation di�icult, because the same platforms that support learning and connection can also expose minors to harm. The risks are varied. Minors may encounter violent or disturbing content, sexual content, cyberbullying, grooming, scams, harmful misinformation, dangerous online challenges, harassment, blackmail, and pressures linked to appearance, popularity, and constant connectivity. Some of these experiences are visible to parents, guardians, and teachers. Others are hidden, normalised among peers, or disclosed only after emotional, social, or reputational harm has already occurred. In Jamaica, the issue sits within a wider context of digital expansion, uneven digital literacy, di�erent levels of parental supervision, and growing dependence on online platforms for communication and information. Parents and guardians are often expected to manage minors’ online behaviour, but they do so in an environment shaped by foreign-owned platforms, algorithmic content recommendations, private messaging, peer influence, and fast-changing digital trends. Household supervision matters, but it cannot reasonably carry the full weight of child online safety. Regulating minors’ social media use is therefore not only a question of restriction. It requires attention to child protection, privacy, freedom of expression, data security, enforcement capacity, institutional trust, and platform accountability. Measures such as age verification, parental controls, platform reporting, content removal, school- based digital literacy, and public education may all have value, but they also carry practical and ethical concerns. Poorly designed regulation can create new risks, especially if it collects excessive personal information, is enforced unevenly, or is seen as an expansion of state control rather than child protection. There is also a local evidence gap. Public debate about social media and minors is often shaped by concern, anecdotal experience, and international examples. Those sources are useful, but they do not fully explain how Jamaicans understand the issue, what forms of regulation they support, who they trust to act, or what concerns may a�ect acceptance and compliance. A policy response that ignores public perception may receive broad approval in principle, yet still face confusion, distrust, or weak implementation. This study was designed to assess public perceptions, attitudes, and acceptance of possible regulatory measures governing social media use among minors in Jamaica. It examines perceived patterns of use and exposure, awareness of online risks, support for regulation, trust in responsible institutions, willingness to comply, and preferred approaches to child online safety. The study also reflects the need for evidence that can support balanced policy development, protecting minors while giving proper attention to rights, privacy, family realities, institutional capacity, and public trust. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
14 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Global Regulatory Models for Protecting Minors in Digital Environments Further evidence from an observational study conducted by the University of Newcastle suggests that the legislation has had only limited early impact on adolescent social media use. Approximately 85% of under-16s reported that they were still using social media three months after the law came into force, with more than half continuing to use their original accounts (Bawden, 2026). The study concluded that implementation had been characterised by incomplete compliance, weak age- verification mechanisms, and widespread circumvention of restrictions. While two- thirds of respondents encountered some form of age verification, only a small proportion were required to provide o�icial identification, with most platforms relying instead on self-reported age or selfie-based verification. Around 15-19% of younger adolescents admitted using fake accounts to bypass restrictions, while a smaller proportion reported using VPNs (Bawden, 2026). Regulatory enforcement has also intensified. By March 2026, the Australian eSafety Commissioner had opened formal investigations into five major social media platforms for alleged non-compliance, with penalties of up to A$49.5 million per breach, while the legislation simultaneously faced constitutional challenges, including claims that it infringes minors' implied right to political communication (Bloomsbury Intelligence and Security Institute, 2026). Evidence regarding wellbeing has likewise been mixed. Although approximately half of a�ected adolescents reported spending less time online following the ban, many reported little or no change in their overall social media use, and others described feeling increasingly disconnected from peer networks and online social interaction (Molly Rose Foundation, 2026; Bawden, 2026). Australia’s experience echoes an earlier, decade-long experiment in South Korea, whose “Shutdown Law” barred under-16s from online gaming between midnight and 6am from 2011. Academic evaluation found only a marginal e�ect on internet addiction and sleep duration (Choi et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2017), and the law was abolished in 2021 after the government concluded it had become unenforceable once gaming shifted to unrestricted mobile platforms. It also carried real costs: minors stole adult identity numbers to bypass the curfew, and the gaming industry argued the restriction had outlived any benefit relative to its enforcement burden and impact on children’s rights (Lee et al., 2017). In the United States, state-level attempts have fared little better. Utah, Arkansas, Ohio, Mississippi, Texas and California have each had similar laws enjoined by federal courts, almost always on First Amendment grounds: courts In NetChoice, LLC v. Reyes (2024), the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of Utah's Minor Protection in Social Media Act, which required age verification, enhanced privacy settings, parental consent, and restrictions on engagement- maximising features for minors. While acknowledging the State's compelling interest in protecting children online, the court found that NetChoice was likely to succeed in its claim that the Act imposed unconstitutional content-based restrictions on social media platforms' editorial discretion, thereby violating the First Amendment. The ruling highlights the legal challenges governments face in balancing child protection with constitutional rights.
15 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 have repeatedly found that mandatory age verification and design restrictions amount to content-based speech regulation that cannot survive constitutional scrutiny, even where states cited credible evidence of harm to children’s mental health (NetChoice, LLC v. Reyes, 2024). This is the clearest evidence to date that an enforceable framework needs a di�erent legal foundation than an outright ban if it is to survive legal challenge. The European Union has taken a narrower path than Australia, prioritising platform- level age assurance and content-design duties over outright account bans, while the United Kingdom has now shifted toward the same blanket-ban model. In June 2026 the UK government announced it will bar under-16s from major social media platforms including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X modelled directly on Australia’s law but extended with further restrictions on livestreaming and contact from strangers; the change is expected to take e�ect through secondary legislation under the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, with rules in force by Spring 2027 (UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, 2026). This builds on the UK’s existing Online Safety Act, which requires “highly e�ective” age checks specifically for content related to pornography, self-harm and eating disorders rather than for social media use itself; its regulator has already issued fines under that narrower regime including a £1.35 million penalty in February 2026 while acknowledging that proving verification is “highly e�ective” remains contested (Ofcom, 2025). The EU is piloting a privacy-preserving age-verification app built on a “double-blind” model, in which neither the platform nor the verifier can see both a user’s identity and the service being accessed, with France, Denmark, Greece, Italy and Spain as early adopters (European Commission, 2025). Greece became the first EU country to legislate an outright age-based social media restriction for minors, and Denmark has cross-party agreement for similar measures expected by mid-2026 (Bloomsbury Intelligence and Security Institute, 2026). This divergence has produced a counter-current among rights bodies. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights formally urged caution in February 2026, arguing that blanket bans shift responsibility for online harm from the platforms whose design choices create it onto children, and recommending that states regulate platform design and accountability rather than children’s access (Council of Europe, 2026). Child-rights organisations have raised similar concerns about the UK and Australian experience, pointing to circumvention and the displacement of vulnerable children toward less-regulated spaces as evidence that bans alone do not resolve the underlying problem (Save the Children, 2025) .
16 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Implications for Minors and Possible Disadvantages Beyond enforcement di�iculty, the international evidence points to several disadvantages a ban-centred approach could create for the minors it is meant to protect. Restricting access can cut children o� from information, peer support and crisis resources, a risk that falls hardest on minors with the least access to o�line safety nets (Save the Children, 2025), and one consistent with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s guidance that restrictive measures must not disproportionately exclude children from the digital environment (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2021). Where restrictions are circumvented rather than complied with, as most cases in both Australia and earlier South Korean experience suggest (Molly Rose Foundation, 2026; Lee et al., 2017), minors may end up on less-regulated or higher-risk fringe platforms, with less visibility for parents, schools, or safeguarding systems than they had on mainstream platforms. Mandatory age-verification systems also introduce new privacy and data-security exposure for children, since proving age can require submitting identity documents or biometric data to third parties precisely the kind of data collection that researchers have flagged as a risk in itself, given the practical di�iculty of verifying age without compromising privacy or systematically excluding those without easy access to formal identification (Bellovin, 2025; Köhler-Dauner et al., 2025). There is also a developmental concern: a hard cut-o� at a fixed age, rather than a gradual increase in digital responsibility, risks producing a sudden, unsupported exposure to social media once the ban lifts, instead of allowing minors to build digital literacy and self-regulation skills over time. Finally, restrictions can sever access to platforms tied to schoolwork, peer communication and entertainment, leaving some minors socially or academically disadvantaged relative to peers elsewhere.
17 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Dimension Utah (USA) Policy Objective Prevent minors from accessing social media without parental consent Age Verification Method Mandatory age verification before account creation Identity Verification Often requires government-issued ID or equivalent documentation Parental Consent Required for minors under 18 Privacy Safeguards Limited guidance; privacy concerns contributed to legal challenge Data Retention Not clearly specified Commercial Use of Verification Data Not specifically addressed Regulatory Authority Utah State Government (subject to federal judicial review) Penalties for Non-Compliance Enforcement suspended pending litigation Major Challenge Constitutional challenge based on free speech and editorial discretion Key Lesson for Jamaica Strong regulation without constitutional and privacy safeguards may not withstand legal scrutiny.
18 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 European Union Australia Protect children while preserving privacy and digital rights Enforce a national social media minimum age of 16 years Privacy-preserving age assurance using digital credentials Platforms must take "reasonable steps" to verify age using approved technologies Designed to verify age without revealing identity ("double-blind" verification) Multiple methods permitted (ID, facial age estimation, third-party verification) depending on platform Determined by individual member states (typically 13–16 years under GDPR) No parental consent exemption; under-16 accounts prohibited regardless of parental approval Strong emphasis on data minimisation and anonymous age verification Mandatory "Ringfence and Destroy" requirement—verification data must be deleted immediately after use Only minimum data necessary may be processed Platforms prohibited from retaining verification documents or biometric information after verification Restricted under GDPR principles Explicitly prohibited from using verification data for advertising, profiling, or algorithmic recommendations European Commission and national Data Protection Authorities eSafety Commissioner and O�ice of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) Administrative fines under GDPR and the DSA Up to A$49.5 million per systemic breach (with proposals to increase penalties) Balancing robust verification with user privacy and interoperability across member states High levels of circumvention, imperfect age detection, and ensuring privacy while enforcing the ban Privacy-by-design o�ers a model for balancing child protection with digital rights. E�ective age verification should incorporate strong privacy protections, minimise data collection.
19 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Country Main Approach Legal or Policy Basis United Kingdom Child online safety and age assurance Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (sec 70) Canada Risk-based child protection approach Online Safety Act 2023 Ireland Platform accountability and child safety Proposed Online Harms legislation and provincial privacy laws Germany Youth protection and harmful content restrictions EU Digital Services Act (DSA) enforced through Irish regulators for major tech firms Norway Strong parental involvement and age assurance Youth Protection Act (Jugendschutzgesetz) South Korea Time-based restrictions and youth protection Ongoing reforms aligned with European child rights standards China Strong state regulation of minors' online activity Various youth online protection laws and gaming restrictions Singapore Harm-reduction and platform responsibility Minor Protection Law and Cyberspace Administration regulations Table 2: Comparative Overview of International Approaches to Social Media Age Restrictions
20 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Enforcement Model Current Implementation Issues Relevance for Jamaica Regulator (Ofcom) can fine platforms for failing to protect children from harmful content Balancing privacy with age verification requirements; implementation still evolving Useful model for platform accountability without imposing a blanket age ban Emphasis on platform duty of care and rapid content removal Legislative reforms remain under development Demonstrates how child protection can be integrated with privacy and human rights protections Strong oversight of large online platforms Regulatory capacity and cross- border enforcement challenges Particularly relevant because many global social media companies are regulated through Ireland Platforms must implement age-appropriate safeguards and content restrictions Enforcement across international platforms remains challenging Illustrates how online safety can be integrated into a broader child protection regime Combination of parental responsibility and platform obligations Privacy concerns surrounding age verification Relevant for Jamaica if seeking a balanced approach rather than a strict ban Government oversight combined with platform compliance Enforcement di�iculties and concerns about e�ectiveness Useful example of regulating online activity through time-use restrictions Mandatory age controls, real-name verification, and time restrictions Significant concerns regarding privacy, surveillance, and freedom of expression Represents the most restrictive regulatory model and provides a useful contrast for policymakers Platforms required to reduce harmful content and comply with government directions Defining harmful content consistently Particularly relevant to Jamaica as a small island state balancing innovation and regulation
21 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 METHODOLOGY Target Population The target population comprised adult residents of Jamaica. The study focused on adults because it examined public perceptions of regulation, including the views of parents, guardians, caregivers, educators, and members of the wider public. Data were not collected directly from minors, which reduced ethical risk while still allowing adult respondents to report their perceptions of minors’ social media use and exposure. The inclusion of adults with di�erent levels of contact with minors was important. Some respondents were parents or guardians. Others cared for, supervised, taught, or regularly interacted with minors. Some used social media themselves, while others did not. These di�erences allowed the study to examine whether views on regulation varied by caregiving role, personal experience with social media, and proximity to minors’ daily lives. Data Collection Data were collected using a structured survey instrument. The questionnaire allowed respondents to answer the same core questions, making it possible to compare responses across demographic and stakeholder groups. It covered minors’ perceived social media use, reported exposure to online harms, support for Government of Jamaica regulation, support for specific regulatory measures, attitudes toward enforcement and rights, trust in institutions, caregiving practices, preferred regulatory approaches, concerns about regulation, and open-ended comments. Face-to-face administration was used to improve inclusion and data quality. This approach was appropriate where internet access, digital confidence, and comfort with online forms may vary. It also allowed trained enumerators to clarify questions where necessary while maintaining a consistent survey structure. Sampling Approach A two-stage, stratified cluster sampling design was employed to investigate public perceptions of social media regulation in Jamaica. The design combined the random selection of geographic clusters with quota controls at the respondent level, a hybrid approach widely used in household-based social surveys to anchor the sample geographically through probability selection, while still allowing fieldworkers to manage the demographic composition of the final sample directly. The design proceeded in two stages. The first stage randomly selected Enumeration Districts (EDs) — the geographically defined clusters of dwellings demarcated by the Statistical Institute of Jamaica (STATIN) for survey purposes — as the primary sampling units. Within each parish, EDs were first stratified by size, and one ED was then randomly selected from each size stratum, ensuring that the sample captured small,
22 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 mid-size, and large communities alike. The second stage involved the selection of individual respondents within each selected ED using quota controls for generational cohort, gender, and education, so that the demographic profile of those interviewed reflected the national population on these characteristics. Stage One: Stratified Random Selection of Enumeration Districts Within each parish, the available EDs were ranked by total dwelling count (the 2022 census measure of ED size) and divided into three size tiers: small, mid-size, and large and one ED was then randomly selected from each tier using a random number generator. This produced exactly three EDs per parish (one small, one mid-size, and one large), for a national total of 42 EDs. EDs were stratified by size before random selection, rather than being drawn through a simple random selection across all of a parish’s EDs, because a simple random draw could, by chance, have excluded small communities altogether, which would have biased the survey toward the perceptions of larger, more urbanised communities. Stratifying by size tier and selecting randomly within each tier guards against this possibility while preserving the random, probability-based character of the selection: every ED selected was still chosen at random, simply from within a defined size band rather than from the full, unstratified list. The number of respondents to be recruited from each parish’s three EDs was then split across those EDs in proportion to their relative dwelling counts so that, within a parish, the larger of the three selected EDs was assigned a correspondingly larger respondent quota than the smaller two with the parish total itself weighted by that parish’s share of the national population (see the section on parish-level allocation below). Stage Two: Quota-Based Selection of Respondents within EDs Within each randomly selected ED, data collectors recruited respondents against pre-set quotas for generational cohort, gender, and education, rather than conducting a full household enumeration and random walk. This approach retained the random, population-weighted selection of geographic clusters described in Stage One, while giving the field team direct control over the demographic balance of the final sample, ensuring that every quota cell by generation, gender, and education was filled as planned. This combination means the design is a probability sample at the ED level every cluster was selected at random and a quota sample at the individual level, since respondents within each ED were recruited to meet demographic targets rather than identified through a further random selection step. This is a common and well- established hybrid design in survey research, and it is the reason the design is properly described as a stratified quota sample, anchored by random cluster selection, rather than a full probability sample.
23 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Parish Community Cluster Total Population (2022 Census) % of National Population Sample Clarendon Clarendon Communities 258,643 9.3% 96 Hanover Hanover Communities 69,780 2.5% 26 Kingston & St. Andrew Kingston Communities 672,904 24.3% 248 Manchester Manchester Communities 193,694 7.0% 72 Portland Portland Communities 84,972 3.1% 31 St. Ann St. Ann Communities 175,310 6.3% 65 St. Catherine St. Catherine Communities 542,763 19.6% 201 St. Elizabeth St. Elizabeth Communities 153,201 5.5% 57 St. James St. James Communities 188,656 6.8% 70 St. Mary St. Mary Communities 116,497 4.2% 43 St. Thomas St. Thomas Communities 94,485 3.4% 35 Trelawny Trelawny Communities 77,427 2.8% 29 Westmoreland Westmoreland Communities 146,205 5.3% 54 Total 2,774,537 100% 1,027 Parish-Level Allocation Using Population Proportionate to Size Jamaica’s 2022 census places the national population at 2,774,537 across the island’s parishes. Because population is not evenly distributed Kingston & St. Andrew alone accounts for approximately 24% of the national population, while smaller parishes such as Hanover account for under 3% the number of respondents targeted within each parish was calculated as that parish’s share of the national population multiplied by the overall required sample size, rather than divided evenly across parishes. This ensured that the final achieved sample remained proportionate to each parish’s actual weight in the national population. Applying this method to a sample of n = 1,027 respondents produced the parish-level allocation summarised in Table 1. Kingston & St. Andrew and St. Catherine, as the two most populous parishes, were assigned the largest shares (248 and 201 respondents respectively), while Hanover, the least populous parish, was assigned the smallest share (26 respondents). Table 3: Parish-Level Sample Allocation Using Population Proportionate to Size (2022 Census)
24 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Demographic Quota Stratification Within the overall sample of 1,027 respondents, quota controls were further structured around generational cohort, given that exposure to, and use of, social media varies markedly by age group and is directly relevant to a study of perceptions of social media regulation. Respondents were classified into four generational cohorts Generation Z, Millennials, Generation X, and Baby Boomers with quotas of 329, 288, 246, and 164 respondents respectively, corresponding to approximately 32%, 28%, 24%, and 16% of the overall sample. Within each generational cohort, quotas were further set by educational attainment, reflecting the broad distribution of educational attainment in the national population: 75% of respondents in each cohort were drawn from those with primary-level education, 15% from those with vocational-level education, and 10% from those with tertiary-level education. Finally, within each generation-by-education cell, an approximately equal gender quota was applied, with recruitment targets split as evenly as possible between male and female respondents, yielding an overall sample that was balanced at 514 male and 513 female respondents. Generation Generation Total Education Level Male Female Total Gen Z 329 Primary (75%) 124 123 247 Vocational (15%) 24 25 49 Tertiary (10%) 17 16 33 Millennials 288 Primary (75%) 108 108 216 Vocational (15%) 21 22 43 Tertiary (10%) 15 14 29 Gen X 246 Primary (75%) 92 92 184 Vocational (15%) 18 19 37 Tertiary (10%) 13 12 25 Boomers 164 Primary (75%) 61 62 123 Vocational (15%) 13 12 25 Tertiary (10%) 8 8 16 Total 1,027 514 513 1,027 Table 4: Sample Stratification by Generation, Education Level, and Gender
25 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Sample Precision Because the selection of EDs retained a probability foundation, an approximate margin of error can be calculated for the achieved sample, notwithstanding the quota-based selection of respondents within EDs. The sample of n = 1,027 yields a margin of error of approximately ±3.1% at the 95% confidence level. This figure should be read as an approximation: because individual respondents within each ED were selected by quota rather than at random, the achieved sample carries some additional, unquantified uncertainty beyond that captured by the margin of error calculation.
26 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA REGULATION FOR MINORS IN JAMAICA Figure 2 - Social Media Platforms Used by Respondents 0.40% 0.80% 1.50% 1.90% 2.60% 3.40% 5.60% 6.10% 10.30% 13.40% 16.50% 16.70% 20.70% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% Discord Other Threads Pinterest Telegram X / Twitter Facebook Messenger Snapchat Facebook Instagram TikTok YouTube WhatsApp Social Media Pla�orms Used by Respondents The chart above shows the social media use breakdown among respondents. WhatsApp recorded the highest level of use at 20.7%. YouTube and TikTok followed closely at 16.7% and 16.5% respectively. Instagram accounted for 13.4%, while Facebook stood at 10.3%. The remaining platforms were reported at lower levels: Snapchat at 6.1%, Facebook Messenger at 5.6%, X/Twitter at 3.4%, Telegram at 2.6%, Pinterest at 1.9%, Threads at 1.5%, Other at 0.8% and Discord at 0.4%. The responses were mainly concentrated around WhatsApp, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook. WhatsApp’s position is notable because it is often treated as a messaging app rather than a typical social media platform. YouTube and TikTok were also close in use, with only 0.2 percentage points separating them. Telegram at 2.6%, Pinterest at 1.9%, Threads at 1.5% and Discord at 0.4% had a limited presence in the sample.
27 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 When asked about the main uses of social media among minors in their care, respondents most commonly reported school/learning at 75.9%. Entertainment followed closely at 72.5%, while communication stood at 62.6%. Gaming-related interaction was also reported by nearly half of respondents, at 48.5%. These four categories were the most common reported uses. The remaining categories were reported at much lower levels. News/information accounted for 22.2%, while content creation stood at 12.3%. Dating/relationships was reported by 5.8%, business/ marketing by 3.6% and other uses by 2.4%. The data shows higher reported use for school/learning, entertainment, communication and gaming-related interaction, with lower reported use for news, content creation, dating/relationships, business/ marketing and other activities. Figure 3 - Reported Reasons Minors Use Social Media 2.40% 3.60% 5.80% 12.30% 22.20% 48.50% 62.60% 72.50% 75.90% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% Other Business/marke�ng Da�ng/rela�onships Content crea�on News/informa�on Gaming-related interac�on Communica�on with… Entertainment School/learning What do minors in your care use social media for?
28 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 When asked about minors’ experiences on social media in the past 12 months, the most commonly reported experience was sleep loss, anxiety, or emotional distress linked to social media use, at 16.9%. Exposure to violent or disturbing content followed closely at 16.8%, while exposure to sexual content stood at 16.5%. These three categories were almost even, with only 0.4 percentage points separating them. Harmful misinformation or dangerous online challenges was reported at 12.9%, placing it below the top three but above the remaining categories. Don’t know/prefer not to say accounted for 8.4%. Lower reported experiences included unwanted sexual messages or grooming at 9.1%, cyberbullying or harassment at 7.2%, sharing private images or information without consent at 6.6%, and scams, blackmail or fraud at 5.6%. The responses were spread across di�erent types of online harm, with the highest figures linked to emotional or sleep-related e�ects and exposure to violent, disturbing or sexual content. Figure 4 - Reported Social Media Experiences of Minors in Respondents’ Care in the Past 12 Months 5.6% 6.6% 7.2% 8.4% 9.1% 12.9% 16.9% 16.5% 16.8% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% Scams, blackmail, or fraud Sharing of private images or informa�on without consent Cyberbullying or harassment Don’t know / prefer not to say Unwanted sexual messages or grooming Harmful misinforma�on or dangerous online challenges Sleep loss, anxiety, or emo�onal distress linked to social media use Exposure to sexual content Exposure to violent/disturbing content To your knowledge, has any minor in your care experienced any of the following on social media in the past 12 months?
29 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Figure 5 - Attitudes Toward Social Media Regulation for Minors 46.7% 44.4% 15.2% 10.9% 16.4% 12.2% 12.2% 11.7% 11.7% 8.8% 8.8% 7.8% 8.6% 6.5% 38.1% 44.7% 66.3% 80.8% 83.1% 83.6% 83.9% 87.4% 87.5% 88.8% 89.9% 90.7% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% Government regula�on of social medica use by minors would be an abuse of power Parents being responsible for managing minors’ social media use. Regula�on of social media use for minors would be difficult to enforce in Jamaica. The Government of Jamaica regula�ng social media use for minors. Protecting minors online is more important than allowing unrestricted social media access. The rights of minors must be balanced with the need for protec�on online. Jamaica needs a clear policy framework for minors’ social media use. Regulation of social media use for minors would improve child safety. Mandatory age verifica�on for crea�ng social media accounts*. Government working with pla�orms to regulate minors’ social media use. Requiring parental consent for minors below a certain age to open accounts. Even if difficult, regulation is s�ll worth pursuing. A�itude Towards Social Media Regula�on Disagree Neutral Agree
30 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Respondents showed strong agreement with most of the statements supporting regulation of minors’ social media use. The highest agreement was for the view that regulation is still worth pursuing even if di�icult, at 90.7%. Support was also high for requiring parental consent before minors below a certain age can open accounts, at 89.9%, and for government working with platforms to regulate minors’ social media use, at 88.8%. Similar levels of agreement were recorded for mandatory age verification at 87.5% and the view that regulation would improve child safety at 87.4%. Agreement also remained high for the statements on Jamaica needing a clear policy framework for minors’ social media use at 83.9%, balancing minors’ rights with online protection at 83.6%, protecting minors online over unrestricted access at 83.1%, and the Government of Jamaica regulating social media use by minors at 80.8%. Agreement was lower on enforcement, with 66.3% agreeing that regulation would be di�icult to enforce in Jamaica, compared with 16.4% neutral and 17.3% disagreeing. The most divided responses were on parental responsibility and abuse of power. For the statement on parents being responsible for managing minors’ social media use, 44.7% agreed and 44.4% disagreed, with 10.9% neutral. The abuse of power statement also had mixed responses, with 46.7% disagreeing, 38.1% agreeing and 15.2% neutral. These two statements had much higher disagreement than the rest of the chart. Table 5: Parental consent for minors Requiring parental consent for minors below a certain age to open accounts. Restricting access to certain social media platforms for children below a specific age. Mean 14.1 14.28 Median 14 15 Mode 16 16 Std. Deviation 2.06 2.157 Variance 4.245 4.651 Skewness -1.11 -1.438 Std. Error of Skewness 0.085 0.087 Range 14 16 Minimum 3 1 Maximum 17 17
31 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Respondents generally favoured a parental consent threshold in the mid-teen years for both opening social media accounts and accessing certain social media platforms. The mean suggested age for requiring parental consent to open an account was 14.1 years, while the mean age for restricting access to certain social media platforms was slightly higher at 14.28 years. The median responses of 14 and 15 years, respectively, indicate that most respondents viewed parental oversight as appropriate until approximately the middle teenage years. In both cases, the most frequently selected age was 16 years, suggesting considerable support for extending parental involvement into later adolescence. The distributions were negatively skewed (Skewness = -1.11 and -1.44), indicating that responses were concentrated at the higher end of the age range, with relatively few respondents selecting very young ages. The relatively small standard deviations (2.06 and 2.16 years) suggest moderate consensus among respondents regarding appropriate age thresholds. Although responses ranged from as low as 3 and 1 years to as high as 17 years, the overall pattern indicates that respondents generally favour parental consent and supervision requirements until approximately 14-16 years of age, with somewhat stronger support for restricting platform access until age 15 or 16 than for requiring parental consent to open an account. This finding suggests a public preference for continued parental involvement during mid-adolescence rather than unrestricted access throughout the teenage years.
32 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Figure 6 - Support for Regulatory Measures to Protect Minors Online 8.4% 5.5% 1.5% 3.1% 1.8% 1.8% 1.5% 5.5% 1.5% 12.1% 11.4% 5.3% 9.4% 6.9% 6.6% 5.1% 11.4% 5.7% 79.5% 83.1% 93.2% 87.5% 91.3% 91.6% 93.4% 83.1% 92.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Use of a national digital identification system to verify age online. Jamaican law specifically addressing social media use by minors. Penalties for social media companies that fail to detect and remove harmful content involvingminors within a specified time.. Requiring platforms to provide stronger privacy settings by default for minors. Public education campaigns for parents on supervising minors online. Limiting access to social media during late-night hours for minors. Requiringplatforms to remove harmful content affecting minors within a specific timeframe. Social media platforms being mandated to report criminal acts against minors to law enforcement School-based digital literacy programmes to teach safe and responsible social media use. To what extent do you support Regulatory Measures to Protect Minors Online Oppose Neutral/Unsure Support
33 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Support was high across all the proposed regulatory measures. The strongest support was for requiring platforms to remove harmful content a�ecting minors within a set timeframe, at 93.4%. This was followed closely by penalties for social media companies that fail to remove harmful content involving minors within a set timeframe, at 93.2%, and school-based digital literacy programmes on safe and responsible social media use, at 92.8%. Support was also above 90% for limiting access to social media during late-night hours for minors, at 91.6%, and public education campaigns for parents on supervising minors online, at 91.3%. Requiring stronger privacy settings by default for minors also received high support, at 87.5%, with 9.4% neutral/unsure and 3.1% opposed. The lowest levels of support were still relatively high. Mandating social media platforms to report criminal acts against minors to law enforcement and having Jamaican law specifically address social media use by minors both recorded 83.1% support, with 11.4% neutral/unsure and 5.5% opposed. The use of a national digital identification system to verify age online had the lowest support, at 79.5%, with the highest levels of neutral/unsure responses at 12.1% and opposition at 8.4%.
34 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Figure 7 - Perceived Impact of Social Media Regulation for Minors 36.6% 39.8% 35.5% 35.6% 24.2% 21.1% 16.3% 13.5% 5.9% 4.1% 4.4%11.4% 3.7% 3.1% 3.8% 3.1% 2.1% 2.4% 2.1% 20.3% 16.4% 18.8% 18.6% 20.7% 19.9% 18.4% 22.0% 20.1% 15.2% 11.0% 10.7% 9.2% 8.5% 9.7% 8.5% 8.0% 43.1% 43.9% 45.7% 45.8% 55.2% 59.1% 65.3% 64.5% 74.0% 80.7% 84.2% 85.3% 86.2% 87.0% 88.4% 88.1% 89.1% 89.9% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% Regula�on may nega�vely affect minors’ ability to access opportuni�es online. Regulating social media for minors could violate privacy. Regulation may give the government too much control over online activity. Regula�on could unfairly limit minors’ freedom of expression. The government may not be able to enforce regula�on fairly or effec�vely. I am concerned that regulation could be used for surveillance rather than child protection. Age verifica�on systems may be unreliable Social media companies should not have access to more personal data for age verifica�on. The benefits of regulation would outweigh the costs or inconvenience. Poorly designed regulation could cause more harm than good. Regula�on would improve minors’ mental well-being. Regulation would reduce cyberbullying among minors. Regulation would help minors develop healthier digital habits. Minors would likely find ways around most restric�ons. Regula�on would reduce minors’ exposure to harmful content. Regulation would improve the accountability of social media companies. Regulation would help parents better supervise minors online. Regulation would contribute to safer online spaces for children and teens in Jamaica. Perceived Impact of Regula�on
35 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Respondents mostly agreed with the positive statements about the impact of regulation. The highest agreement was for regulation contributing to safer online spaces, at 89.9%, followed by regulation helping parents better manage minors’ social media use at 89.1%, regulation reducing minors’ exposure to online risks at 88.4%, and regulation improving the online environment for minors at 88.1%. Agreement was also high for minors likely finding ways around regulation, at 87.0%, and for regulation helping minors use social media more safely, at 86.2%. Several other statements also recorded strong agreement, though at slightly lower levels. Regulation reducing harmful online interactions stood at 85.3%, while regulation improving minors’ online experiences stood at 84.2%. Poorly designed regulation creating problems was agreed with by 80.7%, and 74.0% agreed that the benefits of regulation would outweigh the drawbacks. These figures suggest that respondents generally saw regulation as useful, while still recognising that poor design or enforcement could create problems. The more cautious or critical statements attracted lower agreement and higher disagreement. Social media companies should not be left to regulate themselves recorded 64.5% agreement, 22.0% neutral/unsure and 13.5% disagreement. Age verification systems may be di�icult to implement recorded 65.3% agreement, 18.4% neutral/unsure and 16.3% disagreement. Concern that regulation could create privacy risks had 59.1% agreement, 19.9% neutral/unsure and 21.1% disagreement, while the statement that the government may not be able to enforce regulation had 55.2% agreement, 20.7% neutral/unsure and 24.2% disagreement. The lowest agreement appeared on statements about possible negative e�ects. Regulation could unfairly limit minors’ access recorded 45.8% agreement, 18.6% neutral/unsure and 35.6% disagreement. Regulation may give the government too much control recorded 45.7% agreement, 18.8% neutral/unsure and 35.5% disagreement. Regulating social media for minors may be too di�icult had 43.9% agreement, 16.4% neutral/unsure and 39.8% disagreement. Regulation may negatively a�ect minors recorded 43.1% agreement, 20.3% neutral/unsure and 36.6% disagreement.
36 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Figure 8 - Guardian Practices for Managing Minors’ Social Media Use 10.0% 11.0% 17.9% 13.9% 11.0% 5.2% 7.4% 7.2% 7.9% 7.2% 22.8% 24.2% 19.7% 27.9% 24.7% 28.7% 26.5% 21.5% 24.2% 25.0% 33.3% 30.9% 33.7% 26.1% 32.1% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Set clear rules about how and when minors can use social media. Monitor the social media activities of minors Use parental controls or privacy settings to restrict minors’ access to certain content or platforms Discuss online risks with minors. Enforce consequences when minors do not follow agreed rules for social media use. How Gaurdian Regulate Social Media Never Rarely Some�mes O�en Always
37 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 The most consistent guardian practice was using parental controls or privacy settings, with 33.7% saying they always do this. This was followed closely by setting clear rules about how and when minors can use social media, at 33.3% always, and enforcing consequences when agreed rules are not followed, at 32.1% always. Monitoring minors’ social media activities was also fairly common, with 30.9% reporting that they always do this. Discussing online risks with minors had the lowest “always” response among the five practices, at 26.1%. When “often” and “always” are taken together, setting clear rules had the highest combined figure at 62.0%. Monitoring followed at 57.4%, enforcing consequences at 57.1%, using parental controls or privacy settings at 55.2%, and discussing online risks at 50.3%. The data suggests that respondents were more likely to report rule-setting, monitoring, consequences and technical controls than regular conversations about online risks. The highest “never” response was for using parental controls or privacy settings, at 17.9%. Discussing online risks also had a relatively high “never” response at 13.9%. The lowest “never” response was for setting clear rules, at 10.0%. Across the chart, most practices were reported as happening at least sometimes, but the level of regular use varied by activity.
38 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Figure 9 - Trust in Institutions and Stakeholders for Minors’ Online Safety 45.6 31.2 40.1 33 23.5 29.2 22.1 14.9 17.4 15.3 38.3 48.1 38.4 41.5 46.5 37.5 43.9 45 40 41.1 16.1 20.8 21.5 25.5 30 33.3 34 40.1 42.6 43.6 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 How much do you trust social media companies to protect minors? How much do you trust community organisa�ons to support safe internet use among youth? How much do you trust technology-based age verifica�on systems? How much do you trust the police and jus�ce system to address online abuse involving minors? How much do you trust child protec�on agencies to respond to online harm affec�ng minors? How much do you trust the Government of Jamaica to regulate social media in the best interest of minors? How much do you trust Jamaica to implement this kind of regula�on fairly? How much do you trust a mul�-stakeholder approach involving government, parents, schools, and platforms? How much do you trust parents/guardians to guide minors’ social media use responsibly? How much do you trust schools to educate minors about safe social media use? Trust In Government and Stakeholders No trust Neutral Trust
39 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Trust was highest for schools, parents/guardians, and a multi-stakeholder approach. Schools recorded the highest trust level at 43.6%, with 41.1% neutral and 15.3% reporting no trust. Parents/guardians followed closely, with 42.6% trust, 40.0% neutral and 17.4% no trust. A multi-stakeholder approach involving government, parents, schools and platforms recorded 40.1% trust, 45.0% neutral and 14.9% no trust. Trust was lower for state-related bodies. Jamaica implementing this kind of regulation fairly recorded 34.0% trust, 43.9% neutral and 22.1% no trust. Trust in the Government of Jamaica to regulate social media in the best interest of minors was slightly lower, at 33.3%, with 37.5% neutral and 29.2% no trust. Child protection agencies recorded 30.0% trust, 46.5% neutral and 23.5% no trust. The police and justice system had 25.5% trust, 41.5% neutral and 33.0% no trust. The lowest trust levels were recorded for technology-based age verification systems, community organisations and social media companies. Technology-based age verification systems had 21.5% trust, 38.4% neutral and 40.1% no trust. Community organisations recorded 20.8% trust, 48.1% neutral and 31.2% no trust. Social media companies had the lowest level of trust at 16.1%, with 38.3% neutral and 45.6% no trust. The pattern across the data is that respondents showed more trust in schools, parents/guardians and shared responsibility than in social media companies, technology systems, and enforcement-based institutions. Neutral responses were also high across most categories, especially for community organisations at 48.1%, child protection agencies at 46.5% and the multi-stakeholder approach at 45.0%.
40 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Figure 10 - Respondents’ Views on Compliance and Public Support for Regulation 5.3% 4.0% 2.8% 4.6% 3.1% 4.3% 14.4% 10.2% 8.0% 10.0% 11.6% 8.1% 80.3% 85.8% 89.2% 85.4% 85.3% 87.6% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%100.0% If social media regula�on for minors is introduced, I would comply with it. If age verifica�on becomes mandatory, I would support its use. Most minors would try to bypass restric�ons if they are introduced. I would par�cipate in public educa�on efforts about safe social media use for minors. I would report harmful social media content involving a minor if I saw it. Regula�on can only work if the public is properly educated about it. Public Educa�on, Compliance and Support for Social Media Regula�on for Minors Agree Neutral Disagree
41 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Respondents were asked about public education, reporting harmful content, age verification, likely compliance and whether minors may try to bypass restrictions. Agreement was high across all six statements. The highest agreement was for the view that most minors would try to bypass restrictions if they are introduced, at 89.2%, with 8.0% neutral and 2.8% disagreeing. This was followed by the view that regulation can only work if the public is properly educated about it, with 87.6% agreeing, 8.1% neutral and 4.3% disagreeing. Support for age verification was also high, with 85.8% agreeing that they would support its use if it became mandatory. A similar pattern appeared for participation in public education e�orts about safe social media use for minors, at 85.4%, and willingness to report harmful content involving a minor, at 85.3%. Opposition to these statements was low, ranging from 3.1% for reporting harmful content to 4.6% for participating in public education e�orts. The lowest agreement was for personal compliance with social media regulation for minors, although it still stood at 80.3%. This statement also had the highest neutral response, at 14.4%, and 5.3% disagreement. Overall, the responses were strongly supportive of public education, reporting harmful content, age verification and compliance, while the high agreement on minors bypassing restrictions suggests that respondents also recognised possible limits in how regulation may work in practice.
42 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026
43 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Respondents were asked who should play the leading role in protecting minors on social media in Jamaica. Parents/guardians received the highest share of responses at 40.5%, followed closely by shared responsibility among all stakeholders at 39.1%. The di�erence between these two categories is small, at 1.4 percentage points, suggesting that responses were mainly concentrated between parental responsibility and a broader shared-responsibility approach. Government was selected by 12.7% of respondents, placing it well below parents/ guardians and shared responsibility. Social media companies accounted for 5.2%, while schools recorded 2.0% and other responses accounted for 0.5%. The low figures for schools and social media companies suggest that respondents were less likely to see either group as the main lead actor on its own. Most responses instead placed the lead role either with parents/guardians or across multiple stakeholders. Respondents were asked whether they support the Government of Jamaica regulating social media use for minors in Jamaica. A large majority expressed support, with 90.2% selecting support. Neutral or unsure responses accounted for 6.9%, while opposition was much lower at 2.9%. The responses are heavily concentrated in the support category. The gap between support and opposition is 87.3 percentage points, and support is also far higher than the neutral/unsure category. Based on this distribution, there was broad overall support among respondents for government regulation of minors’ social media use in Jamaica. Figure 12 - Overall Support for Government Regulation of Minors’ Social Media Use in Jamaica 90.2% 6.9% 2.9% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Support Neutral/Unsure Oppose Overall Support for Government Regula�on of Minors’ Social Media Use
44 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Respondents were asked whether they support the Government of Jamaica regulating social media use for minors in Jamaica. Support was high across all age groups, but it was strongest among Baby Boomers at 95.4% and Gen X respondents at 95.2%. Millennials also showed high support at 92.9%, followed by the Silent Generation at 90.0%. Gen Z recorded the lowest level of support at 80.8%. It also had the highest neutral/ unsure response at 14.1% and the highest opposition at 5.1%. This di�ers from the older age groups, where support was above 90% and opposition was either absent or very low. Among Baby Boomers, no opposition is shown, while Gen X recorded 2.6% opposition and Millennials 2.5%. The results show broad support for government regulation across generations, with older respondents showing stronger support overall. Gen Z respondents were still mostly supportive, but their responses were more spread across support, neutral/ unsure and opposition than the other groups. Figure 13 - Support for Government Regulation of Minors’ Social Media Use by Generation 5.1% 2.5% 2.6% 14.1% 4.6% 2.2% 4.6% 10.0% 80.8% 92.9% 95.2% 95.4% 90.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% Gen Z 18-29 Millenials 30-45 Gen X 46-61 Baby Boomers 62-80 Silent Genera�on 81-98 Support for Government of Jamaica Regula�on of Minors’ Social Media Use by Genera�on Support Neutral/Unsure Oppose
45 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Respondents were asked whether they support the Government of Jamaica regulating social media use for minors, with responses broken down by highest level of education completed. Support was highest among respondents with a Bachelor’s degree, at 97.2%, followed by those with a postgraduate degree at 95.4%. Respondents with primary education or below also recorded high support at 93.2%. Support was slightly lower among respondents with vocational/technical education at 90.9%, secondary education at 88.2%, and diploma/associate-level education at 86.8%. These three groups still showed strong majority support, but they also had higher levels of neutral/unsure and opposition than the degree-level groups. The highest neutral/unsure responses were among respondents with diploma/ associate education at 8.8% and secondary education at 8.3%. Opposition was also highest among the diploma/associate group at 4.4%, followed by secondary at 3.5% and vocational/technical at 2.9%. Opposition was lower among respondents with a Bachelor’s degree and those with primary education or below, both at 1.4%, while no opposition is shown for respondents with a postgraduate degree. Support for government regulation was high across all education levels, ranging from 86.8% to 97.2%. The strongest support appeared among respondents with university- level education, while the diploma/associate and secondary groups showed more mixed responses. Figure 14 - Support for Government Regulation of Minors’ Social Media Use by Education Level 1.40% 3.50% 2.90% 4.40% 1.40% 5.40% 8.30% 6.20% 8.80% 1.40% 4.6% 93.20% 88.20% 90.90% 86.80% 97.20% 95.4% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00% Primary or below Secondary Voca�onal/Technical Diploma/Associate Bachelor's degree Postgraduate degree Support for Government Regula�on of Minors’ Social Media Use by Highest Level of Educa�on Completed Support Neutral/Unsure Oppose
46 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Respondents were asked which approach they would prefer most, with responses broken down by highest level of education completed. Among respondents with postgraduate degrees, strong legal restrictions had the highest support at 76.9%, while 23.1% preferred balanced social media regulation supported by parent training. No other option is shown for this group. Among respondents with Bachelor’s degrees, strong legal restrictions also had the largest share at 42.3%, followed by balanced regulation with parent training at 32.4% and mainly education and awareness at 22.5%. The remaining responses in this group were low, with 1.4% unsure and 1.4% preferring no regulation. Figure 15 - Preferred Approach to Regulating Minors’ Social Media Use by Education Level 27.0% 27.7% 29.2% 30.9% 42.3% 76.9% 43.2% 48.0% 42.6% 48.5% 32.4% 23.1% 14.2% 15.9% 20.6% 17.6% 22.5% 2.7% 2.7% 1.9% 1.5% 1.4% 12.8% 5.8% 5.7% 1.5% 1.4% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Primary or below Secondary Voca�onal/Technical Diploma/Associate Bachelor's degree Postgraduate degree Preferred Approach to Social Media Regula�on for Minors by Educa�on Level Unsure No regula�on Mainly educa�on and awareness, not legal control Balanced social media regulation supported by parent training in online safety prac�ces Strong legal restric�ons
47 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 For respondents with diploma/associate education, vocational/technical education, secondary education, and primary or below, the preferred option was balanced regulation supported by parent training. This option recorded 48.5% among diploma/associate respondents, 42.6% among vocational/ technical respondents, 48.0% among secondary respondents, and 43.2% among respondents with primary education or below. Strong legal restrictions were lower in these groups, ranging from 27.0% among respondents with primary education or below to 30.9% among diploma/associate respondents. Mainly education and awareness, rather than legal control, received moderate support across most groups. It was highest among respondents with Bachelor’s degrees at 22.5%, followed by vocational/technical at 20.6%, diploma/ associate at 17.6%, secondary at 15.9%, and primary or below at 14.2%. Support for no regulation was low across all groups where it appeared, ranging from 1.4% among Bachelor’s degree respondents to 2.7% among secondary and primary-or-below respondents. The highest unsure response was among respondents with primary education or below, at 12.8%, followed by secondary at 5.8% and vocational/technical at 5.7%. The pattern di�ers by education level. Respondents with postgraduate and Bachelor’s degrees leaned more toward strong legal restrictions, while the other education groups leaned more toward a balanced approach combining regulation and parent training. Very few respondents across the education groups preferred no regulation. Figure 16 - Preferred Approach to Regulating Minors’ Social Media Use by Age Group 25.6% 28.6% 32.0% 35.8% 40.0% 45.0% 46.6% 46.1% 39.7% 30.0% 18.2% 17.7% 14.9% 16.6% 20.0% 3.8% 1.8% 1.9% 1.3% 7.4% 5.3% 5.2% 6.6% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% Gen Z 18-29 Millenials 30-45 Gen X 46-61 Baby Boomers 62-80 Silent Genera�on 81-98 Preferred Approach to Social Media Regula�on for Minors by Age Group Unsure No regula�on Mainly educa�on and awareness, not legal control Balanced social media regulation supported by parent training in online safety prac�ces Strong legal restric�ons
48 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Respondents were asked which approach they would prefer most, with responses broken down by age group. Among the Silent Generation, strong legal restrictions had the highest share at 40.0%, followed by balanced regulation with parent training at 30.0%, mainly education and awareness at 20.0%, and unsure at 10.0%. No regulation is not shown for this group. For Baby Boomers, the largest share preferred balanced regulation with parent training at 39.7%, followed closely by strong legal restrictions at 35.8%. A similar pattern appeared among Gen X, Millennials and Gen Z. Balanced regulation with parent training was the leading option among Gen X at 46.1%, Millennials at 46.6%, and Gen Z at 45.0%. Strong legal restrictions were lower among these groups, at 32.0% for Gen X, 28.6% for Millennials, and 25.6% for Gen Z. Mainly education and awareness received moderate support across the age groups, ranging from 14.9% among Gen X to 20.0% among the Silent Generation. Gen Z recorded 18.2%, Millennials 17.7%, and Baby Boomers 16.6%. Support for no regulation was low across all groups where it appeared, at 1.3% among Baby Boomers, 1.9% among Gen X, 1.8% among Millennials, and 3.8% among Gen Z. The unsure response was also relatively low, ranging from 5.2% among Gen X to 10.0% among the Silent Generation.
49 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Figure 17 - Preferred Approach to Regulating Minors’ Social Media Use by Respondent Role 30.3% 44.7% 16.2% 2.5% 6.3% 29.7% 44.9% 16.9% 2.4% 6.1% 29.1% 45.2% 17.5% 2.3% 5.9% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Strong legal restric�ons Balanced social media regulation supported by parent training in online… Mainly educa�on and awareness, not legal control No regula�on Unsure Strong legal restric�ons Balanced social media regulation supported by parent training in online… Mainly educa�on and awareness, not legal control No regula�on Unsure Strong legal restric�ons Balanced social media regulation supported by parent training in online… Mainly educa�on and awareness, not legal control No regula�on Unsure Do you currently care for, supervise, or regularly interact with your minor child or minor children Are you a parent to a minor (Child under 18) Do you use social media Preferred Approach to Regula�ng Minors’ Social Media Use by Respondent Role
50 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Respondents were grouped by social media use, parental status, and whether they currently care for, supervise, or regularly interact with minors. Across all three groups, the preferred approach was balanced social media regulation supported by parent training in online safety practices. This option recorded 45.2% among social media users, 44.9% among parents of minors, and 44.7% among those who care for, supervise, or regularly interact with minors. Strong legal restrictions ranked second across all three groups. Support for this option was 29.1% among social media users, 29.7% among parents of minors, and 30.3% among those who care for, supervise, or regularly interact with minors. Mainly education and awareness, without legal control, received lower support, at 17.5%, 16.9%, and 16.2% respectively. The pattern is very similar across the three groups. No regulation was low in each case, ranging from 2.3% to 2.5%, while unsure responses ranged from 5.9% to 6.3%. The figures suggest that the preferred approach did not vary much by these respondent roles. In each group, respondents leaned most toward a balanced approach, followed by stronger legal restrictions. Figure 18 - Support for Government Regulation of Minors’ Social Media Use by Respondent Role 0.0% 16.7% 83.3% 3.7% 10.4% 85.9% 11.5% 88.5% 2.8% 3.2% 94.0% 2.7% 3.7% 93.6% 3.4% 7.6% 89.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%100.0% Oppose Neutral/Unsure Support Oppose Neutral/Unsure Support Oppose Neutral/Unsure Support Do you currently care for, supervise, or regularly interact with your minor child or minor children Are you a parent to a minor (Child under 18) Do you use social media? Support for Government Regula�on of Minors’ Social Media Use by Respondent Role Yes No
51 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Support for government regulation was high across all three role categories shown in the chart. Social media users and non-users gave almost the same level of support, at 89.0% and 88.5% respectively. The main di�erence was in neutral/unsure responses, which were higher among non-users at 11.5%, compared with 7.6% among users. Opposition was recorded at 3.4% among social media users, while no opposition is shown among non-users. Parents of minors recorded stronger support than non-parents. Support stood at 93.6% among parents, compared with 85.9% among non-parents. Neutral/unsure responses were lower among parents at 3.7%, while non-parents recorded 10.4%. Opposition remained low in both groups, at 2.7% among parents and 3.7% among non-parents. The clearest gap appeared among those who care for, supervise, or regularly interact with minors. Support was 94.0% among those in this group, compared with 83.3% among those who do not. Neutral/unsure responses were also much lower among those with regular contact with minors, at 3.2%, compared with 16.7% among those without that role. Opposition was 2.8% among those who care for or interact with minors, while no opposition is shown among those who do not. The results suggest that direct responsibility for, or regular contact with, minors is associated with stronger support for regulation. Social media use itself made little di�erence, since users and non-users had almost identical levels of support.
52 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Figure 19 - Preferred Regulatory Priorities by Respondent Role 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 41.5% 10.7% 3.9% 25.3% 9.7% 3.0% 5.8% 38.5% 7.7% 3.8% 30.8% 7.7% 11.5% 44.7% 12.0% 5.6% 23.9% 5.6% 2.1% 6.0% 43.9% 12.5% 5.4% 24.0% 5.7% 2.4% 6.1% 42.7% 11.6% 4.6% 24.5% 8.0% 2.9% 5.7% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Protec�ng minors from online harm Protec�ng minors' privacy and personal data Protec�ng minors' freedom of expression and access to informa�on Helping parents and guardians guide minors' online use Making social media companies more accountable for child safety Preventing government overreach or misuse of regula�on Unsure Protec�ng minors from online harm Protec�ng minors' privacy and personal data Protec�ng minors' freedom of expression and access to informa�on Helping parents and guardians guide minors' online use Making social media companies more accountable for child safety Preventing government overreach or misuse of regula�on Unsure Protec�ng minors from online harm Protec�ng minors' privacy and personal data Protec�ng minors' freedom of expression and access to informa�on Helping parents and guardians guide minors' online use Making social media companies more accountable for child safety Preventing government overreach or misuse of regula�on Unsure Do you currently care for, supervise, or regularly interact with your minor child or minor children? Are you a parent to a minor (Child under 18)? Do you use social media? Preferred Priori�es for Regula�ng Minors’ Social Media Use by Respondent Role Yes No
53 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 The chart compares preferred priorities for regulation across social media users, parents of minors, and respondents who care for, supervise, or regularly interact with minors. Across all three groups, protecting minors from online harm was the most selected priority. Among social media users, 42.7% selected this option, compared with 38.5% among non-users. Among parents of minors, the figure was 43.9%, compared with 41.5% among non-parents. Among those who care for, supervise, or regularly interact with minors, it was 44.7%, compared with 25.0% among those who do not. Helping parents and guardians guide minors’ online use was the second most common priority across the chart. It recorded 24.5% among social media users and 30.8% among non-users. Among parents of minors, the figures were close, at 24.0% for parents and 25.3% for non- parents. Among those who care for or interact with minors, it stood at 23.9%, compared with 25.0% among those who do not. Protecting minors’ privacy and personal data received lower, but still noticeable, support. It was selected by 11.6% of social media users and 7.7% of non-users. Among parents of minors, it was 12.5% for parents and 10.7% for non-parents. The largest gap appeared among those who care for, supervise, or regularly interact with minors, where 12.0% selected privacy and personal data compared with 25.0% among those who do not. Other priorities were selected less often. Making social media companies more accountable for child safety ranged from 5.6% to 9.7% across the groups. Protecting minors’ freedom of expression and access to information ranged from 3.8% to 5.6% where figures were shown. Preventing government overreach or misuse of regulation was also low, except among respondents who do not care for, supervise, or regularly interact with minors, where it stood at 8.3%. Unsure responses ranged from 5.7% to 11.5%, with the highest unsure figure among respondents who do not use social media. The main pattern is that online harm and parent/guardian guidance were the two leading priorities across the di�erent respondent roles. Di�erences between users and non-users, and between parents and non-parents, were generally modest. The largest variation appeared among those who do not care for, supervise, or regularly interact with minors, where responses were more spread across online harm, parent guidance, privacy and personal data, government overreach, platform accountability and unsure.
54 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Figure 20 - Preferred Regulatory Priority by Age Group 46.4% 13.2% 2.3% 20.9% 9.5% 3.2% 4.5% 42.7% 12.1% 7.3% 21.4% 6.8% 2.9% 6.8% 41.9% 11.5% 3.7% 28.8% 7.3% 1.6% 5.2% 37.3% 5.9% 4.9% 33.3% 6.9% 3.9% 7.8% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 37.5% 12.5% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Protec�ng minors from online harm Protec�ng minors' privacy and personal data Protec�ng minors' freedom of expression and access to information Helping parents and guardians guide minors' online use Making social media companies more accountable for child safety Preven�ng government overreach or misuse of regulation Unsure Top Priority for Regula�ng Minors’ Social Media Use by Age Group Gen Z 18-29 Millenials 30-45 Gen X 46-61 Baby Boomers 62-80 Silent Genera�on 81-98
55 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 The chart above breaks down views on the top priority for government regulation of minors’ social media use by age group. Protecting minors from online harm was the leading priority among Gen Z at 46.4%, Millennials at 42.7%, Gen X at 41.9% and Baby Boomers at 37.3%. The Silent Generation was di�erent, with only 12.5% selecting online harm. Helping parents and guardians guide minors’ online use was also a major priority, especially among older respondents below the Silent Generation. It was selected by 20.9% of Gen Z, 21.4% of Millennials, 28.8% of Gen X and 33.3% of Baby Boomers. Among the Silent Generation, this option stood at 12.5%. Protecting minors’ privacy and personal data received lower but steady support among most groups. It was selected by 13.2% of Gen Z, 12.1% of Millennials, 11.5% of Gen X, 5.9% of Baby Boomers and 12.5% of the Silent Generation. Protecting minors’ freedom of expression and access to information was generally lower, ranging from 2.3% among Gen Z to 12.5% among the Silent Generation. Making social media companies more accountable for child safety was much higher among the Silent Generation at 37.5%, compared with 9.5% among Gen Z, 6.8% among Millennials, 7.3% among Gen X and 6.9% among Baby Boomers. Preventing government overreach or misuse of regulation was low across all groups where shown, ranging from 1.6% among Gen X to 3.9% among Baby Boomers. Unsure responses ranged from 4.5% among Gen Z to 12.5% among the Silent Generation. The main pattern is that most age groups placed the strongest emphasis on protecting minors from online harm, followed by helping parents and guardians guide minors’ online use. The Silent Generation responses were more spread, with higher emphasis on platform accountability, but that group should be read carefully because the repeated 12.5% values suggest a small number of respondents in that category.
56 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 When asked about the best way to regulate social media use for minors in Jamaica, parental control received the highest response at 28.0%. Age verification/restriction followed at 14.8%, making it the second most selected option. Several responses were clustered close together in the middle of the chart. Blocking or banning content and public education/awareness each recorded 11.6%. Stakeholder collaboration and laws to regulate social media use each stood at 11.2%. These four categories were very close, with only 0.4 percentage points separating the highest and lowest among them. Limited screen time was selected by 6.2% of respondents. The remaining options received much lower responses, with accountability of parents at 2.4%, accountability of social media platforms at 1.6%, and third-party apps for data security at 1.4%. The results place parental control ahead of all other options, while age verification/ restriction sits in a clear second position. After that, responses are spread across content control, public education, stakeholder collaboration and legal regulation. The least selected options were accountability of parents, accountability of platforms, and third-party apps for data security. Figure 21 - Preferred Ways to Regulate Minors’ Social Media Use in Jamaica *open ended question that was post coded 1.4% 1.6% 2.4% 6.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.6% 11.6% 14.8% 28.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Third party app for data security Accountability of Social Media pla�orms Accountability of parents Limited screen �me Laws to regulate Social Media use Collabora�on of stakeholders Public Educa�on/Awareness Block/Band Content Age Verifica�on/Restric�on Parental Control What do you think is the best way to regulate social media use for minors in Jamaica?*
57 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 The question focused on concerns respondents had about regulating social media use for minors. Data privacy and safety was the most common concern, at 32.6%. This was well above the other categories, suggesting that respondents were most likely to associate regulation with issues around how information would be collected, stored, protected, or used. The next highest concern was minors bypassing restrictions, at 14.9%. Abuse or misuse of regulation followed at 11.4%, while delays in implementing regulation accounted for 9.7%. The figure for e�ectiveness of regulation is partly covered by the tooltip in the chart, but it appears to be about 8.6% based on the remaining distribution. Fairness in regulation was recorded at 6.3%, and limited access or freedom of expression stood at 5.1%. The remaining concerns were much lower. Poor parenting and emotional impact or pushback each recorded 3.4%, followed by cost of regulation at 2.9% and consistency with regulation at 1.7%. Overall, the responses were led by privacy and safety concerns, with secondary concerns around minors bypassing rules, misuse of regulation, delays and e�ectiveness. Concerns such as cost, consistency and emotional pushback were mentioned less often. Figure 22 - Concerns About Regulating Social Media Use for Minors *open ended question that was post coded 1.7% 2.9% 3.4% 3.4% 5.1% 6.3% 8.6% 9.7% 11.4% 14.9% 32.6% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Consistency with regula�on Cost for regulation Emo�onal impact/ Push back Poor paren�ng Limit access/ Freedom of expression Fairness in regula�on Effec�veness of regula�on Delay in implementa�on of regula�on Abuse/Misuse of Regula�on Minor bi-pass restriction Data Privacy & Safety What concerns, if any, do you have about regula�ng social media use for minors?*
58 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 The additional comments were mainly centred on parental control, which accounted for the largest share at 25.0%. Public awareness and education followed at 14.2%. Better parenting and enforcing existing laws each accounted for 12.5%, while stakeholder collaboration and more age verification or restriction each stood at 11.6%. Ban or block harmful content was close behind at 10.8%. The comments were spread across several related themes rather than concentrated in one area only. Parental control was the strongest theme, but respondents also pointed to education, parenting, enforcement, stakeholder collaboration, age verification and content control. Accountability of social media platforms was much lower at 1.8%, making it the least mentioned theme in the comments. Figure 23 - Additional Comments on Regulating Social Media Use for Minors open ended question that was post coded* 1.8% 10.8% 11.6% 11.6% 12.5% 12.5% 14.2% 25.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Accountability of social media platform Band/Block content More age verifica�on/Restriction Collabora�on of stakeholders Ensure laws are enforced Be�er paren�ng Public Awareness/Educa�on Parental control Addi�onal comments on Social Media Regula�on for Minors*
59 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS Social media regulation for minors in Jamaica received strong support across the survey, but the findings do not point to a simple demand for government control. Respondents supported government action, while also placing responsibility on parents, schools, platforms and wider stakeholder cooperation. Overall, 90.2% supported the Government of Jamaica regulating social media use for minors, compared with 6.9% who were neutral or unsure and 2.9% who opposed. Yet when respondents were asked who should lead in protecting minors on social media, parents/guardians received 40.5% and shared responsibility among all stakeholders received 39.1%. Government was much lower at 12.7%, while social media companies stood at 5.2% and schools at 2.0%. Support for regulation therefore does not mean respondents want the state to act alone. The platform-use data helps explain why respondents may see the issue as one that cuts across home, school, government and private companies. WhatsApp had the highest reported use at 20.7%, followed by YouTube at 16.7%, TikTok at 16.5%, Instagram at 13.4% and Facebook at 10.3%. The concentration around these platforms means that the debate is not limited to one kind of social media activity. WhatsApp points to messaging, groups and forwarded content, while YouTube and TikTok point to video-based use. Instagram and Facebook add public posting, private messaging, images, reels and community pages. Regulation therefore has to deal with di�erent types of online spaces, not only the platforms most often associated with public content. The findings on minors’ reported use of social media also complicate the issue. School/learning was the most common reported use at 75.9%, followed by entertainment at 72.5%, communication at 62.6% and gaming-related interaction at 48.5%. These figures show that social media use among minors is not framed by respondents only as risky or inappropriate. It is also tied to ordinary activities, especially learning, leisure and communication. Lower figures for news/information at 22.2%, content creation at 12.3%, dating/relationships at 5.8%, business/marketing at 3.6% and other uses at 2.4% suggest that respondents were mainly identifying everyday forms of use rather than more specialised online activities. At the same time, the reported experiences of minors show why respondents may favour some form of intervention. Sleep loss, anxiety or emotional distress linked to social media use recorded 16.9%, exposure to violent or disturbing content recorded 16.8%, and exposure to sexual content recorded 16.5%. These were followed by
60 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 harmful misinformation or dangerous online challenges at 12.9%, unwanted sexual messages or grooming at 9.1%, cyberbullying or harassment at 7.2%, sharing private images or information without consent at 6.6%, and scams, blackmail or fraud at 5.6%. The figures are spread across several categories rather than concentrated in one type of harm. That spread helps explain why respondents supported a range of measures, including education, parental consent, age verification, content removal, privacy protections and platform accountability. Support for regulation was especially strong when the statements were framed around child safety, parental consent, age verification and a clear national framework. Agreement was highest for the view that regulation is worth pursuing even if di�icult, at 90.7%. Requiring parental consent for minors below a certain age to open accounts recorded 89.9%, while government working with platforms recorded 88.8%. Mandatory age verification stood at 87.5%, and the view that regulation would improve child safety stood at 87.4%. Agreement was also high for Jamaica needing a clear policy framework for minors’ social media use at 83.9%, balancing minors’ rights with online protection at 83.6%, protecting minors online over unrestricted access at 83.1%, and the Government of Jamaica regulating social media use by minors at 80.8%. The enforcement-related findings were more cautious. A majority agreed that regulation would be di�icult to enforce in Jamaica, at 66.3%, while 16.4% were neutral and 17.3% disagreed. In a separate set of statements on perceived impact, 87.0% agreed that minors would likely find ways around regulation, and 80.7% agreed that poorly designed regulation could create problems. This does not weaken the overall support for regulation, but it changes how that support should be read. Respondents appear to favour action, while also recognising that regulation can fail if it is poorly designed, di�icult to apply, or easy for minors to bypass. That concern is particularly relevant in Jamaica’s case because many of the major platforms used locally are owned and operated overseas, which limits how far local authorities can compel platform behaviour without cooperation. Support for specific regulatory measures also shows a preference for practical and protective responses. The strongest support was for requiring platforms to remove harmful content a�ecting minors within a set timeframe, at 93.4%, followed by penalties for companies that fail to remove harmful content involving minors within a set timeframe at 93.2%. School-based digital literacy programmes received 92.8% support. Limiting late-night access for minors stood at 91.6%, while public education campaigns for parents stood at 91.3%. Requiring stronger privacy settings by default for minors received 87.5% support. Support was lower, though still high, for Jamaican
61 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 law specifically addressing social media use by minors and for mandating platforms to report criminal acts against minors to law enforcement, both at 83.1%. The use of a national digital identification system to verify age online had the lowest support among the listed measures, at 79.5%, with 12.1% neutral or unsure and 8.4% opposed. Trust levels help explain why a shared model may be more acceptable than a government-only model. Schools recorded the highest trust level at 43.6%, followed by parents/guardians at 42.6% and a multi-stakeholder approach at 40.1%. Trust was lower for Jamaica implementing this kind of regulation fairly at 34.0%, the Government of Jamaica regulating in the best interest of minors at 33.3%, child protection agencies at 30.0%, and the police and justice system at 25.5%. The lowest trust figures were recorded for technology-based age verification systems at 21.5%, community organisations at 20.8%, and social media companies at 16.1%. Social media companies also recorded the highest no-trust figure at 45.6%, while technology-based age verification systems recorded 40.1% no trust. These figures show a clear public confidence problem. Respondents support regulation, but they do not place high trust in some of the actors and systems that would be involved in carrying it out. The guardian-practice data points in the same direction. Many respondents reported that guardians already use some form of control or supervision. Using parental controls or privacy settings was reported as “always” by 33.7%, setting clear rules by 33.3%, enforcing consequences by 32.1%, and monitoring minors’ social media activities by 30.9%. Discussing online risks with minors had the lowest “always” response, at 26.1%. When “often” and “always” are combined, setting clear rules had the highest figure at 62.0%, followed by monitoring at 57.4%, enforcing consequences at 57.1%, parental controls or privacy settings at 55.2%, and discussing online risks at 50.3%. This suggests that many guardians are already trying to manage social media use, but conversation-based guidance may be less consistent than rules, monitoring and controls. The demographic breakdowns show broad support across groups, with some variation. By age group, Baby Boomers recorded the highest support for government regulation at 96.1%, followed by Gen X at 95.8%, Millennials at 92.2%, the Silent Generation at 87.5%, and Gen Z at 76.8%. Gen Z still showed majority support, but it also had the highest neutral/unsure response at 17.3% and the highest opposition at 5.9%. By education, support was also high across all groups, ranging from 86.8% among diploma/associate respondents to 97.2% among respondents with a Bachelor’s degree. Support stood at 95.4% among postgraduate respondents, 93.2% among respondents with primary education or below, 90.9% among vocational/ technical respondents, and 88.2% among secondary-level respondents. By
62 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 respondent role, support was higher among parents of minors at 93.6% compared with 85.9% among non-parents. It was also higher among those who care for, supervise or regularly interact with minors at 94.0%, compared with 83.3% among those who do not. Social media use itself made little di�erence, with 89.0% support among users and 88.5% among non-users. The preferred-approach figures suggest that respondents favoured a balanced model over no regulation or regulation by law alone. Across social media users, parents of minors and those who care for or interact with minors, the leading option was balanced social media regulation supported by parent training. This option recorded 45.2% among social media users, 44.9% among parents of minors, and 44.7% among those who care for, supervise or regularly interact with minors. Strong legal restrictions ranked second across the same groups, at 29.1% among social media users, 29.7% among parents of minors, and 30.3% among those who care for, supervise or regularly interact with minors. Mainly education and awareness were lower, at 17.5%, 16.9% and 16.2% respectively. No regulation was low in each group, ranging from 2.3% to 2.5%. By age group, balanced regulation with parent training was the leading option among Baby Boomers at 39.7%, Gen X at 46.1%, Millennials at 46.6%, and Gen Z at 45.0%. Strong legal restrictions were lower among these groups, at 35.8% for Baby Boomers, 32.0% for Gen X, 28.6% for Millennials, and 25.6% for Gen Z. The Silent Generation di�ered from the other age groups, with strong legal restrictions highest at 40.0%, followed by balanced regulation with parent training at 30.0%, education and awareness at 20.0%, and unsure at 10.0%. By education level, respondents with postgraduate and Bachelor’s degrees leaned more toward strong legal restrictions. Among postgraduate respondents, strong legal restrictions stood at 76.9%, while balanced regulation with parent training stood at 23.1%. Among respondents with a Bachelor’s degree, strong legal restrictions stood at 42.3%, followed by balanced regulation with parent training at 32.4% and mainly education and awareness at 22.5%. The other education groups leaned more toward balanced regulation with parent training: diploma/associate respondents at 48.5%, vocational/technical respondents at 42.6%, secondary-level respondents at 48.0%, and respondents with primary education or below at 43.2%. The priority figures show that protecting minors from online harm was the leading concern across most groups. By respondent role, protecting minors from online harm was selected by 42.7% of social media users and 38.5% of non-users. It was also selected by 43.9% of parents of minors and 41.5% of non-parents. Among those who
63 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 care for, supervise or regularly interact with minors, the figure was 44.7%, compared with 25.0% among those who do not. Helping parents and guardians guide minors’ online use was also a major priority. It recorded 24.5% among social media users and 30.8% among non-users, 24.0% among parents and 25.3% among non-parents, and 23.9% among those who care for or interact with minors compared with 25.0% among those who do not. By age group, protecting minors from online harm was the leading priority among Gen Z at 46.4%, Millennials at 42.7%, Gen X at 41.9% and Baby Boomers at 37.3%. The Silent Generation di�ered, with only 12.5% selecting online harm and 37.5% selecting platform accountability. Helping parents and guardians guide minors’ online use was selected by 20.9% of Gen Z, 21.4% of Millennials, 28.8% of Gen X, 33.3% of Baby Boomers and 12.5% of the Silent Generation. The Silent Generation should be read carefully because the repeated 12.5% values suggest a small number of respondents in that category. The open-ended and preference-based responses reinforce the role of parents and public education. When asked about the best way to regulate minors’ social media use in Jamaica, parental control received the highest response at 28.0%, followed by age verification/restriction at 14.8%. Blocking or banning content and public education/ awareness each recorded 11.6%, while stakeholder collaboration and laws to regulate social media use each stood at 11.2%. Limited screen time stood at 6.2%, while accountability of parents recorded 2.4%, accountability of social media platforms 1.6%, and third-party apps for data security 1.4%. Additional comments followed a similar pattern. Parental control was the largest theme at 25.0%, followed by public awareness and education at 14.2%. Better parenting and enforcing existing laws each stood at 12.5%, while stakeholder collaboration and more age verification or restriction each stood at 11.6%. Ban or block harmful content accounted for 10.8%, and accountability of social media platforms was much lower at 1.8%. These comments suggest that respondents were not only thinking about new laws. They were also thinking about supervision at home, public education, existing law enforcement, stakeholder cooperation, age restrictions and content control. The concern data places an important limit on how the findings should be interpreted. Data privacy and safety was the most common concern, at 32.6%. Minors bypassing restrictions followed at 14.9%, with abuse or misuse of regulation at 11.4% and delays in implementation at 9.7%. E�ectiveness of regulation appeared at about 8.6% based on the chart, though that value was partly covered in the screenshot. Fairness in
64 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 regulation was recorded at 6.3%, and limited access or freedom of expression stood at 5.1%. Lower-level concerns included poor parenting at 3.4%, emotional impact or pushback at 3.4%, cost of regulation at 2.9%, and consistency with regulation at 1.7%. These figures show that respondents were not calling for stronger regulation without concern for its e�ects. Their concerns were mainly about privacy, minors bypassing restrictions, misuse, delays and practical workability. Overall, the findings support a balanced and realistic policy direction. Jamaicans in the sample appear to support government regulation of minors’ social media use, but they also expect parents, schools, platforms and other stakeholders to share responsibility. The strongest support lies behind measures that protect children from harm while still recognising the ordinary ways minors use social media. A workable Jamaican approach would need clear rules, parent training, school-based digital literacy, public education, privacy safeguards, reporting systems and platform cooperation. It would also need to be honest about enforcement limits, especially where overseas technology companies are involved.
65 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 REFERENCES Australian Government eSafety Commissioner. (2026). Social media age restrictions: Compliance update. eSafety Commissioner. Bawden, A. (2026, June 24). Four in five under-16s in Australia using social media despite ban, study shows. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/ 2026/jun/24/australia-under-16-social-media-ban-no-substantial-e�ects-study Bellovin, S. M. (2025, October). Privacy-preserving age verification - and its limitations [Conference paper]. IAB/W3C Workshop on Age-Based Restrictions on Content Access. Bloomsbury Intelligence and Security Institute. (2026, January). Australia’s social media ban: A test for global digital governance. Choi, J., Cho, H., Lee, S., Kim, J., & Park, E.-C. (2018). E�ect of the online game shutdown policy on Internet use, Internet addiction, and sleeping hours in Korean adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62(5), 548-555. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.11.291 Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights. (2026, February 23). Regulate platforms, not children: Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights urges caution over social media bans. Council of Europe. European Commission. (2025). Commission releases enhanced second version of the age-verification blueprint. Shaping Europe’s Digital Future. Köhler-Dauner, F., Peter, L., Sitarski, E., Chauviré-Geib, K., Haag, A.-C., & Fegert, J. M. (2025). Digital child protection in social networks: Age verification and age-tiered regulation in Europe. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-025-01016-x Lee, C., Kim, H., & Hong, A. (2017). Ex-post evaluation of illegalizing juvenile online game after midnight: A case of shutdown policy in South Korea. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1597-1606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.006 Molly Rose Foundation. (2026, April). Australia’s social media ban - is it working? [Research briefing]. NetChoice, LLC v. Reyes, No. 2:23-cv-00911 (D. Utah 2024). Ofcom. (2025). Protection of Children Codes of Practice. UK O�ice of Communications. Save the Children. (2025). Statement on age-based social media restrictions for children. Save the Children International.
66 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. (2026, June 15). Social media to be banned for under-16s in landmark government move to give kids their childhood back [Press release]. GOV.UK. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2021). General comment No. 25 (2021) on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment (CRC/ C/GC/25). United Nations.
67 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 APPENDIX Stakeholder Primary Interest Influence Potential Impact on Implementation Engagement Strategy Cabinet Child protection, public safety, political legitimacy Very High Can approve policy direction, legislation, and national strategy Regular policy briefs and Cabinet submissions Ministry of Education (MOEYI) Student safety, digital literacy, school governance Very High Critical for curriculum integration and school- based interventions Lead implementation partner O�ice of the Children's Advocate (OCA) Protection of children's rights and welfare Very High Can champion child protection provisions and public education Co-lead awareness and monitoring e�orts Child Protection and Family Services Agency (CPFSA) Prevention and response to child abuse and exploitation High Key referral and intervention agency for online harms Formal referral and reporting protocols Ministry of Legal and Constitutional A�airs Legislative development and legal safeguards High Essential for drafting legislation and privacy protections Ongoing legislative working group O�ice of the Information Commissioner Data privacy and protection High Ensures age verification and data collection comply with privacy laws Technical review of proposed safeguards Jamaica Constabulary Force (CISOCA) Investigation of cybercrime and online exploitation High Responsible for enforcement of criminal aspects Capacity building and reporting partnerships Broadcasting Commission Digital content governance and media regulation High Can support standards, awareness, and policy alignment Policy coordination role Ministry of Science, Energy, Telecommunications and Transport Digital policy and technology regulation High Responsible for technical and digital governance frameworks Technical oversight and standards development Schools (Public and Private) Student welfare and safe learning environments High Main delivery mechanism for digital literacy and prevention initiatives Curriculum implementation and reporting Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) Child safety and parental involvement High Can drive parental buy- in and compliance Structured consultation and training programmes
68 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Parents and Guardians Child protection and family wellbeing Very High Most trusted and most influential stakeholder in children's daily online behaviour Continuous public education and parenting support Students/Minors Safe access to digital opportunities Medium Compliance and acceptance determine policy e�ectiveness Youth consultation and feedback mechanisms Religious Organizations and Churches Family values, child welfare, moral development Medium-High Extensive reach into communities and families; can reinforce responsible digital behaviour Partner in public awareness campaigns and parenting programmes Community-Based Organizations Community safety and youth development Medium Can support local education and referral pathways Community engagement programmes Guidance Counsellors and School Psychologists Mental health and psychosocial wellbeing Medium Early identification of online harms Professional training and referral protocols Universities and Research Institutions Evidence generation and policy evaluation Medium Can support monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment Research partnerships Social Media Companies (Meta, TikTok, Google, Snap, X) Platform growth, compliance, reputation management High (Externally) Critical for content moderation and age safeguards but outside direct government control Formal engagement through regional advocacy Telecommunications Providers Internet access and digital services Medium May support awareness campaigns and technical controls Public-private partnerships CARICOM Regional digital governance and negotiation leverage High Can increase bargaining power with global platforms Regional policy coordination UNICEF and International Development Partners Child rights and online safety Medium Technical assistance and funding support Strategic partnerships Media Houses Public information and awareness Medium Shape public perception and policy acceptance Public education campaigns Private Sector Technology Firms Digital safety tools and innovation Medium Can provide age assurance, monitoring, and safety technologies Innovation partnerships
69 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 LOWER INTEREST HIGHER INTEREST HIGHER INFLUENCE KEEP SATISFIED No stakeholders identified in this category. MANAGE CLOSELY (Key Players) • Cabinet • Ministry of Education (MOEYI) • O�ice of the Children’s Advocate (OCA) • Parents and Guardians • Child Protection & Family Services Agency (CPFSA) • Ministry of Legal and Constitutional A�airs • O�ice of the Information Commissioner • Jamaica Constabulary Force (CISOCA) • Broadcasting Commission • Ministry of Science, Energy, Telecommunications and Transport • Schools (Public and Private) • Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) • CARICOM • Social Media Companies (Meta, TikTok, Google, Snap, X)* LOWER INFLUENCE MONITOR (Minimum Effort) No stakeholders identified in this category. KEEP INFORMED (Supporting Actors) • Students / Minors • Religious Organizations and Churches† • Community-Based Organizations • Guidance Counsellors and School Psychologists • Universities and Research Institutions • Telecommunications Providers • UNICEF and International Development Partners • Media Houses • Private Sector Technology Firms The stakeholder power/interest grid below maps the 23 stakeholders identified for the minors’ social media regulation policy process against two dimensions: their interest in the issue, and their influence or power over the policy outcome. The placement is based on the interest and influence ratings assigned to each stakeholder, using a five- point scale from Very Low to Very High. Every stakeholder identified in this analysis scored High or Very High on interest; none scored Medium or below. The distinguishing factor across stakeholders is therefore their relative influence over the policy outcome, which is why the grid below shows activity concentrated in the two right-hand quadrants Manage Closely and Keep Informed with the Keep Satisfied and Monitor quadrants unused for this particular stakeholder set. Scale: Very High = 5, High = 4, Medium = 3, Low = 2, Very Low = 1. No stakeholder in this analysis scored below ‘High’ on Interest. * Social media companies’ influence is exercised mainly outside Jamaica’s direct regulatory reach (platform, not domestic, leverage). † Religious Organizations and Churches scored Medium-High on Influence; placed nearest the boundary with Manage Closely. STAKEHOLDER POWER/INTEREST GRID Table 6: Stakeholder Matrix
70 Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026 Fourteen stakeholders including Cabinet, the Ministry of Education, the O�ice of the Children’s Advocate, and Parents and Guardians as the highest-rated group, alongside key implementing agencies, regulatory bodies, schools, and CARICOM fall in the Manage Closely quadrant. These are the stakeholders whose active engagement and buy-in will matter most to the framework’s success and should be prioritised for direct consultation and coordination as the policy is developed. Nine stakeholders including students/minors themselves, religious and community organisations, guidance counsellors, universities, telecommunications providers, and media houses fall in the Keep Informed quadrant. These stakeholders have a strong stake in the outcome but comparatively less direct influence over the policy process; they should be kept informed of developments and consulted at key milestones, including through the structured input from minors already recommended in the wider report.
Ministry of Health & Wellness, Jamaica | 2026