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 4511479
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have discussed that with representative bodies of the social media companies, and I am concerned about it. I know from personal experience of women who were interested in getting involved in politics but took a cursory glance through some of our collective social media threads and decided that the level of abuse was intolerable and that they would not expose themselves and their families to it. It is a real issue, and we lose out on a significant talent pool because people feel intimidated and threatened and are worried about their families in that context. I have not had a discrete conversation about it with the Electoral Commission, but I have spoken informally about the issue to some of the Electoral Commissioners, because they approached me and asked specifically about the impact that it is having on political discourse. Not all of the traffic is driven by legitimate actors. A number of them are not local people criticising our local politicians but are funded from rather nefarious sources, and there seems to be a drive to attack those who speak up for democratic norms in order to undermine them and to intimidate women who try to speak up and raise issues of misogyny, sexism and other forms of hate. It is important — I reflected on this in a recent interview that I did with a young researcher who is looking into this — that, in the context of Northern Ireland, with all the division that we have, we can show a united front when it comes to that kind of abuse. Irrespective of the party political views of the Member who is being attacked, if people are being attacked because of who they are, how they look or the fact that they are a woman or have any other defining characteristic, we need to stand united and say that it is unacceptable.
314 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: 0.05 (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 (0.65).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.95).
- 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 | 0.23 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.65 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.05 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.99 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.