Debate contribution: Sexually Explicit Deepfake Images
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Sexually Explicit Deepfake Images
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5111232
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The issues that the Member refers to fall into the reserved space rather than the devolved space. However, I have, obviously, had contact with Ofcom, which is responsible for implementing the Online Safety Act and carrying out oversight of it. I have been engaging directly with Ofcom about our concerns, and I am briefed regularly by it on the work that it is doing to develop codes of practice and guidance for those bodies. I have also raised my concerns with the Home Office directly, because, if there is to be any further tightening of that legislation, which, I know, some of us certainly believe that there could be, particularly around anonymity, it would be for them to take it forward rather than us, because it is a reserved matter. It is something that I am engaged with regularly.
139 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: 0.04 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.56 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.52 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.31 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.09 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.08 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:13 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.