Debate contribution: Online Harms: Impact on Young People

Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on .

MLA
Ms Sian Mulholland
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
13 May 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Online Harms: Impact on Young People
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4948213

Read the official Assembly record

Text

As a former youth worker, I witnessed young people's journey through the joy and the pressure that come with growing up, and, in the past decade, I saw significant change in how that pressure was increasingly being shaped by the online world. For many of our young people, being online is not part of life; it is life. That was made crystal clear in last year's 'Growing up Online' report, which was produced by Professor Noel Purdy and his colleagues at Stranmillis. As one young person quoted in the report put it:

“We’re teenagers. We spend most of our day on the internet.”

That report, funded by the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland, found that most people use their phones to message friends, watch videos, listen to music, shop, learn and so much more. For some, particularly our LGBTQI+ youth or those facing exclusion from school, being online is a genuine source of support and community, so I am not here to demonise technology. As a youth worker and now as a legislator, I have seen how the online world can empower, inform and connect our young people in truly brilliant ways. I am acutely aware of the need for mobile phones for continuous glucose monitoring, and, as a rural MLA and someone who grew up with no neighbours within a half-mile radius, I know only too well the lifeline that a mobile phone can be for young people who miss the bus, need to arrange collection, or, indeed, in reducing the isolation that growing up in a rural setting can bring. However, as a former child protection trainer, I have also seen what happens when adults and those with nefarious motivations hijack that space. When companies design apps to be addictive, predators exploit vulnerability and online platforms enable bullying, abuse, coercion and misogyny, that is when the space turns from safe to unsafe, and that is when we have a duty to act. Stepping in does not mean restrictions and outright banning straight away; it also means equipping our young people with the capacity to navigate that space safely and build their resilience. It is also about empowering parents to feel confident in those spaces so that they can guide their children. It is about ensuring that everyone in society knows that they have a part to play in safeguarding. It is also important to note that this is not just about young people being glued to screens; it is not just that. It is about the fact that one in five children had experienced something nasty or unpleasant online in the previous two months. That happens most commonly on social media apps. Among the14- to 18-year-old cohort, girls are significantly more likely than boys to be asked to send nude photos, to be sent inappropriate photos or to see content promoting self-harm, eating disorders, body dysmorphia or suicide. That is hard to take in, but it is happening day in, day out. Parents want to help, but they, too, are struggling. Just 8% of those teens said that their parents are interested in their online activity. The parents in the focus groups described their guilt and fear and how they feel completely out of their depth. They are stuck between the pressure to let their children keep up with their peers and the fear of what they are being exposed to. For me, it is all about support for young people, for their parents and for school communities. We have to ensure that online safety is a core part of the curriculum and not an afterthought, because it works. Online safety needs to be meaningfully embedded in order for it to be most effective. It should not be just a PowerPoint once a year or a bit of a tick box. There must be a sustained, age-appropriate approach to teaching about grooming, consent, coercion, body image, misinformation, fact-checking, AI and healthy relationships. Alongside that, we have to increase counselling provision in schools so that, when harm happens, support is not weeks or months away. We need to make sure that people know that they are not alone or helpless. That was really clear to me in my previous job. Young people need to know that they can speak to trusted adults, whether that is at their school, at youth provisions or, indeed, at home. They need to know that there is help available, particularly from platforms such as the Internet Watch Foundation, to remove inappropriate images. We have used the adage, "What happens online stays online", but that can give young people who are caught up in inappropriate image-sharing scandals a feeling of hopelessness. We have to reform RSE to include real conversations about online coercion and respect in a digital world. As someone who has spent years listening to and working with young people on the ground, I want to see those safety nets in place. I hope that all children can grow up safe online and offline.

831 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.93).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.96).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.93Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.96
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.04
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.56
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.42
Another identity-related subject0.02
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:36 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.

Challenge this classification