Debate contribution: Online Abuse
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Online Abuse
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4511467
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Whilst telecommunications legislation, including the regulation of social media platforms, is a reserved matter, my Department has sought to take a proactive approach to supporting online safety. I sought to influence the content of the Online Safety Act 2023, urging that more be done to address the lack of accountability of anonymous account holders, which is a key issue when seeking to prevent and detect online harms and offences. Recently, I have also met Ofcom representatives to get an update on the implementation of the Online Safety Act and the plans for it to be put into practice. In addition, the Member will be aware that, previously, I held a round-table forum to take views on tackling online abuse and intimidation, particularly in the light of incidents during the last Assembly elections. In the previous Assembly mandate, I brought forward legislation that strengthened existing law and introduced new offences such as stalking, upskirting, downblousing and cyber-flashing. Those offences have added real, tangible and valuable protections against both online and offline abuse. I am also mindful of the dangers that are associated with online radicalisation. Young people, in particular, are at risk of being radicalised through access to harmful online content. I am engaged with law enforcement partners about what we can do to address that risk. A criminal justice response alone cannot improve online safety. We must take a holistic approach that is focused on prevention and education, as set out in the cross-Executive online safety strategy, which has been put in place to assist children and young people to participate in the online world in a positive, safe and responsible way.
272 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.91).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.09 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.39 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.35 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.25 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:58 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.