Debate contribution: Online Harms: Impact on Young People
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Baker on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Baker
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 13 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Online Harms: Impact on Young People
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4948243
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for proposing the motion. It is a timely and important topic. Before I start, I will say that I was not getting into a back-and-forth argument; I was just making the point that smartphones can be used for good in education. We know that educators and pupils use them. That was the point that I was making. I also think that a pilot scheme on smart pouches for smartphones costs too much. It was scrutinised in Committee, where those concerns were raised. It could cost up to £5 million with a recurring additional cost. Mental health services are not available to primary schools, and that is why I made that comparison. It was a measured contribution that I made as a parent who has concerns about that. I take the opportunity to use the motion to highlight the concerns that came to me as a parent only recently after watching the Netflix show, 'Adolescence', which shines a spotlight on the need to tackle gender-based violence. To call the show "impactful" is an understatement. It brings into focus some of the most pressing issues that we face in society today. It is essential viewing for parents and, where appropriate, older teenagers. As a parent, I thought I had a good handle on the world of social media and its dangers: in reality, I knew very little. The show signs a spotlight on incel subculture, disinformation, loneliness, bullying, isolation, misogyny, femicide and the societal pressures faced by our youth. I had never heard terminology such as "80:20", "black pilling" or the kidney beans. The new incel subculture convinces straight men to blame women and society for their perceived failures. It thrives in a digital world, as men isolate themselves and fall into a movement that welcomes them with open arms and further infects them with its poisonous ideology. When left unchecked and unchallenged, it degenerates into women-hating, self-hating, further isolation and loneliness that, in turn, leads to potential violent tendencies that could lead and has led to violence against women and girls and femicide. It can fester in any household. How many of us really know what our children are looking at on their social media, what is on their Instagram feed or whom they are listening to on TikTok? Young men need role models to guide and support them. If they do not get that at home, in school or in the community, they will seek it elsewhere. The digital world, with the likes of Andrew Tate and other harmful influencers, preys on those vulnerable individuals. In order to tackle the problem, we need to understand it.
Peer pressure and bullying follow our children from the classroom into their home and their bedroom. That is why I urge everyone to educate themselves to help inform and support our young people in what is an ever-changing world. Now is clearly a difficult time for young people to navigate an increasingly digital world. I am confident, however, that, armed with the right information and approach, we can all play our part in providing support and guidance so that our young people can challenge the dangers of misinformation online rather than be persuaded by it.
535 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: 0.09 (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 (0.63).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.65).
- 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 | 0.15 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.63 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.31 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.65 |
| Adopts it | 0.04 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.70 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.30 |
| 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 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.