Debate contribution: Tackling Online Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Mr Maurice Bradley on .
- MLA
- Mr Maurice Bradley
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 14 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Tackling Online Violence Against Women and Girls
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4736403
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion. Legislation to tackle platform promoters who provide a platform for such social abuses to be published and then shared needs to be addressed, because they are guilty. They are guilty because they have provided that platform. To use a platform, you must be a member of it; therefore, those people are responsible for their membership. It is too easy to acquire a fake profile or account. The likes of Facebook, X, which was Twitter, Instagram and Meta need to do more to regulate their platforms, because they are making money out of them and profiting from the abuse of others. Not only are they not doing enough to regulate who becomes a member of those social media platforms but they are not doing enough to remove videos or offensive material once they have been identified. Legislation needs to be put in place to tackle that before it happens rather than after it has happened. Owners must take responsibility for the content that is published on their platforms. That has not come across yet, and the Governments in Westminster and here need to take account of it. Those owners must be held responsible for any content that they publish, just as a newspaper is. Legislation has not kept apace with the expansion of the internet. It is too easy to make a false profile and to hack a social media account and cause offence not only with the material that is published but to the holder of the account that has been hacked.
When that happens, it creates offence right across the board. There is something badly wrong with the mindset of anybody who puts out a deepfake video. It could be a sickness, or it could be pure, deliberate vandalism that is trying to cause harm to an individual or organisation. I support the motion. I hope that it passes and that something concrete comes out of what we decide to do here today.
328 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.79).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.79 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.21 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.79 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.20 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:47 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.