Member's statement: Nudification Apps
Member's statement by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 12 January 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Nudification Apps
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5311226
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Happy new year. I welcome Mr Wilson to the Chamber. Last week, the headlines were dominated by the revelation that an AI feature on X — formerly known as Twitter — can be used to undress women with the click of a button. Artificial intelligence has extraordinary power. I have talked about what it can do for the good, and I am genuinely excited about its potential to transform our public services and to help the economy and healthcare for the next generation — there are so many opportunities — but we cannot ignore the reality, which is that, right now, the same technology is being used to cause harm. One of the most urgent and disturbing examples of that is the rise of so-called nudification apps and sexually explicit deepfakes. The non-consensual creation of such images is abuse: it is a form of violence that is, overwhelmingly although not exclusively, directed at women and girls. Our law needs to keep pace with what is happening. As chair of the all-party group on artificial intelligence, I believe that we have a responsibility to make sure that AI works for society, not against it. At present, it is entirely legal to have on your phone apps for which the sole purpose is to generate sexually explicit images of real people. There is no justification for that. That is why I have started work on an amendment to the Justice Bill to ban nudification apps and to make it illegal to create non-consensual sexually explicit images, rather than its just being illegal to share them. Naomi Long has been doing important work to tackle deepfakes. In order to complete that work, however, we need to tackle the technology that enables it. This is not an abstract issue. It already causes profound harm, and it is an especially urgent issue when it comes to children. The recent findings of the Children's Commissioner for England show a worrying rise in the use of nudification tools involving children, with clear calls for those apps to be outlawed. Protecting children and young people should be at the very centre of absolutely everything that we do. It is not only a legal or technological challenge. This is one of the key questions that, as a politician and a mother, I am grappling with. We see on the news that politicians are exiting Twitter in droves. What I find so difficult is that there are real people behind those prompts, so it is a societal issue. Technology does not exist in vacuum; it reflects the attitudes and behaviours of the world around it. Ending abuse also means challenging misogyny, raising awareness and listening, particularly to young people, who are often the most directly affected. We need to consult on the issue and talk about it, because talking about the abuse and shining a light on it is the most powerful tool that we have.
486 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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.73).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.73 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.27 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.86 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.14 |
| 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 14:13 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.