(2 days, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of digital platforms on UK democracy.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to host this debate today, and I thank the sponsors and Members here present for supporting it. I begin by paying tribute to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, two public servants murdered in the name of hatred—the very hatred and radicalisation that digital platforms fuel. We are failing a whole generation. We are failing young women facing unprecedented levels of abuse and harassment. We are failing young men being radicalised and exploited in plain sight. We are failing democracy itself, as misinformation and intimidation silence voices and distort political participation.
Today’s digital age presents a new, unparalleled threat to our democracy. Social media is not without its benefits. It allows us to connect with constituents and promote causes; indeed, I am sure that all of us would be looked upon very unfavourably if we did not engage in the online space in some shape or form. It has become one of the few ways that young people engage with politics, and it has played a pivotal role in promoting grassroots activism and greater transparency. However, we now face a national emergency of misinformation and digital violence. Families, teachers and even young people themselves are crying out for an overhaul.
Just this past month, we have seen stark reminders of the harm that digital platforms enable. The release of “Adolescence” has rightly ignited a national conversation about online misogyny and radicalisation, exposing the toxic digital culture infiltrating our homes and classrooms. We only have to look at cases like the murder of Brianna Ghey to see the horrifying real-world impact. The reality is that young men radicalised online do not just stay there; they go out into the world and sometimes commit the most heinous acts of violence.
The rising tide of online hate and radicalisation does not exist in isolation. Misogyny, incel ideology and far-right extremism, among others, are not just thriving in online spaces; they are being actively cultivated by algorithms that are designed to maximise engagement and profit. That is a really important point, which I will come back to later.
Esther Ghey, Brianna’s mum, has called social media “an absolute cesspit”, and I am sure that we all agree. She has called for an under-16s ban, and she is right to do so. I want to make it clear that this crisis is not confined to one country, one background or even one ideology. The names change, but the pattern remains the same. Parents are terrified and teachers powerless, and children are being exploited right under our noses. All we have to do is look at the case of Alexander McCartney, a prolific paedophile who sat in his bedroom in County Armagh and abused thousands of children across the world. It is the UK’s largest ever catfishing case, involving a man who used social media to blackmail, torment and sexually exploit children across the world. When I participated in a discussion last year on the safer phones Bill, all the big social media companies were present. After they had boasted about how they self-regulated, I asked them whether they were familiar with the Alexander McCartney case.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate, and on all the campaign work that she is doing. Does she agree that although there are some fantastic examples of social media being used positively to enhance democracy and political participation, this is often reliant on benevolent and honest owners, and that our democratic safeguards should not rest on the presumption of good will or honesty from technology giants?
Sorcha Eastwood
Absolutely, and that is a really timely point. We should not outsource our children’s safety to social media companies. Indeed, we heard in a previous statement about the impact of content moderation and how it may or not form part of discussions on trade agreements as we move forward.
When I sat in a room with all the social media companies, only one had heard of the Alex McCartney case. That tells us everything that we need to know about how seriously big tech takes child safety.
It should not take a TV show like “Adolescence” to make the Government wake up to what has been warping our society for years. The actions that they have taken so far have been inadequate. Meeting the creators of “Adolescence” was indeed welcome, but it is simply not enough. Commissioning more reviews, talking about cultural change, and tinkering at the edges will not fix the problem. We must speak to the platforms in the only language they understand: profit and loss. We know what drives this issue: algorithms, content recommendation systems and the financial interests of the big tech companies actively steer vulnerable young people towards ever more extreme content. This is not a side effect; it is their business model.
Fundamentally, this debate is about power: who holds it, who wields it, and in whose name are they acting? Right now, big tech billionaires and online extremists are working hand in hand, shaping our children and democracy, and warping our society. This Government have been too slow, too weak and too captured by vested interests to stop them. Figures like Andrew Tate have built empires by manipulating young men into their worlds of violent misogyny, lies and conspiracy. Tate has ingratiated himself with Donald Trump and Elon Musk, but does he care about men? Not a bit—he exploits them. This is not just an individual person behaving irresponsibly; it is a co-ordinated machine trying to drown out critical voices, spread misinformation and undermine public debate.
Let us be honest: agitators and bullies like the Tate brothers have always existed. What has changed are the tools and the platforms that they have at their disposal, which give them access to young people in particular. Let us be clear: their reach is not accidental. Andrew Tate is amplified, promoted and monetised by the same platforms that claim to be unable to regulate online harm. This is not just about free speech; it is about radicalisation and control. Powerful malign actors—some overseas, and some home grown—are exploiting our young people and our political system for profit. Social media platforms are not neutral: they push extremist content deliberately, algorithmically and at scale.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for the clear way that she is laying out some of the issues that we are talking about today. I am lucky enough to be a vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, and one of our strands of work is on tackling myths and disinformation. One of the calls I have heard is that, at the very least, the social media giants should have a duty to carry out a risk assessment of legal but harmful content, which covers some of the issues that she is talking about. Does she agree that that is the very least the platforms could do?
Sorcha Eastwood
I thank the hon. Member for her comments, and I completely agree that that is the bare minimum that they should do.
A report by Hope Not Hate found that almost 90% of boys aged 16 to 18 in the UK have consumed content from Andrew Tate. On Elon Musk’s X, a platform that has dismantled its trust and safety teams, Tate’s videos dominate young men’s feeds. If we allow this climate to continue, we are handing digital platforms the power to dictate political debate, poison young minds and do irreparable damage to our democracy.
Of course, the loudest free speech warriors are the first to silence criticism, as I know from personal experience. After I called out Elon Musk for platforming extremism, Tate’s followers immediately descended on me with a flood of abuse and harassment. That was not random; it was a deliberate attempt to silence an elected representative. I was bombarded with death threats, rape jokes and abuse from accounts both local and international. Then the Tate brothers themselves came after me—two men running from the most serious criminal charges and propped up by the world’s most powerful leaders. They targeted me, an elected representative from Northern Ireland, for daring to speak my mind. It was not even about them—it was about Musk—but it was a calculated attempt to silence an elected politician. I was, in their words, “a nice target”. It was a direct attack on democracy and on this House itself.
This is not just about individuals; it is about democracy. We have seen a deliberate, organised effort to create an online environment where extremism flourishes, where intimidation becomes the norm, and where women, minorities and political opponents are driven out of public life.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this really important debate, and for her passionate speech. She highlights the ripple effect that will be created if we do not challenge social media companies. In the last general election, we saw so many women and black and minority ethnic candidates being targeted online by anonymous social media accounts, and much of that went unchecked. Does she agree that if we do not deal with this issue, we will see fewer people putting themselves forward to stand for public office?
Sorcha Eastwood
Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I am really honoured that she is here today, because her voice is so important. When I was elected to the House last year, I was really proud to be here as part of a diverse Parliament. That diversity is welcomed across the House and is reflected on these Benches. That is good, but I have to be honest and say that we have heard from many parliamentarians—not just here, but across the UK—that if they had known what being an elected representative would bring to their life, they would not have stepped forward. But that is exactly what we need, because the social media companies want those voices to be silenced.
This is not just about our agreeing with the political views we like—absolutely not. I will defend to the hilt the right of people to express views that I absolutely do not agree with, because they need to be heard too. The hon. Member made a really important point, and I thank her for it.
The Northern Ireland Electoral Commission’s report on the 2024 UK general election laid bare that over half of candidates reported harassment, intimidation or abuse; one in ten faced severe abuse; and women were disproportionately targeted, as were minorities, often by anonymous accounts—the point just made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). The consequences were immediate: nearly 40% of candidates avoided solo campaigning and almost 20% avoided social media altogether. This is a system in which intimidation silences voices before they can even be heard. I have heard the same warnings from colleagues across this House, and the chilling effect is real.
It is much bigger than this too. Let us be clear: our democracy is under threat, and the battlefield is not just in Parliament or the ballot box, but online, where rogue states and billionaire tech moguls are manipulating public opinion for their own ends. The recent Romanian presidential election should have been a routine democratic process. Instead, it became a cautionary tale. A pro-Russian candidate who did not debate, did not campaign and supposedly spent nothing suddenly surged to the top of the first round, and the election was then annulled. That was digital interference in action—a warning for every European democracy, including our own.
If Members think that is just happening in Romania, they should think again. Here in the UK, over half of the public said they saw misleading information about party policies and candidates during the last general election. Nearly a quarter of voters say they have encountered election-related deepfakes, while 18% were not even sure if they had. The scale of the problem is staggering. Democracy does not function when voters cannot trust what they see or hear, yet the people in control of these digital platforms are not just bystanders, but active participants.
How is it that Elon Musk, now sitting in Trump’s Administration, owns one of the world’s biggest digital platforms, which has spiralled into a far-right cesspit? Remember when we thought silicon valley’s tech bros were going to make society better—more open and more progressive? Those days are long gone. Now they have tasted power and they are in the White House, endorsing the AfD—Alternative für Deutschland—in Germany, while their algorithms push misogynists and conspiracy theorists to the top of feeds.
This is not a glitch in the system; this is the system. It is a system that rewards the loudest, most divisive voices while drowning out facts and reasoned debate. If we care about democracy here in the UK, we need to stop treating social media giants as neutral platforms, and call them what they are: political actors. If we do not hold them to account, we are not just allowing misinformation to spread, but handing them the keys to our elections on a silver platter.
For online abusers, anonymity is not protection; it is a weapon, and overwhelmingly it is used against women and minorities. For centuries, democratic debate was based on people knowing who they were engaging with. Anonymity once existed to protect the speaker from harm. Now it enables the speaker to inflict harm with impunity. This is not about free speech; it is part of a political strategy; a co-ordinated effort to undermine trust in institutions, silence opposition and create a hostile environment for anyone who dares to challenge the status quo. When those in power let this happen—by dragging their feet on game-changing legislation, by gutting a private Member’s Bill and by potentially scrapping a digital tax, handing more money to the very platforms on which these predators thrive—they are sending a message. It is a message to every woman in public life and every girl in this country that their safety is not the Government’s problem.
What needs to be done? We must deprive these hate figures and predators of the oxygen of publicity. Why is it being tolerated? The Online Safety Act 2023 was outdated before it was even fully implemented. It is too slow and too weak, and the harms it was designed to address have only worsened. Regulators lack the power to challenge big tech, and Ministers are too afraid to stand up to Musk and Trump. Every concession emboldens these extremists, there is no appeasing them, and our children’s lives cannot be collateral damage in a reckless pursuit of growth.
Australia has taken decisive, world-leading action. It has introduced a full ban on social media for under-16s. Meanwhile, the UK’s digital age of consent remains 13. That means children as young as year 8 can legally sign up to platforms awash with violent misogyny, porn, self-harm content and extremist material. What more proof do this Government need? The safer phones Bill could have been a game changer. Instead, it was watered down, gutted and abandoned. Why? It was because this Government prioritised big tech’s profits over our children’s wellbeing. We do not need any more reviews or consultations, but we do need decisive, courageous action. While this Government dither, the average 12 to 15-year-old now spends 35 hours a week—more than a full-time job—on their phone.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a genuinely powerful speech with a really strong argument, and I commend her for it. The Government may be struggling to tackle the digital platforms themselves, but would a useful first step be banning telephones in schools up to the age of 16?
Sorcha Eastwood
The hon. Member is absolutely right. This is a huge issue to grapple with, but I think the evidence is clear about what this has caused so far. There is a valid discussion to be had about the use of phones, and school is possibly one of the only places where our children’s devices will be taken off them for a set period, but the issue is what is on the phones when they get them back. For me, that is the point at hand.
To conclude, who would want to be a child growing up in this world today? That question is really distressing and disturbing. It is a world in which radicalisation is just a click away, misinformation spreads like wildfire and people’s reputations are trashed in seconds, and it is one in which those who challenge it are met with a wall of co-ordinated abuse. I know I would not want to be growing up today, with political donations, foreign interference in elections, voter manipulation, online bullying, deepfakes, mental health problems and class disruption—and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Sadly, I do not have time to cover it all, but I do know that we have a moral duty to protect young people and future generations, and I truly believe that everybody in this House genuinely believes that and wants to act on it.
This is now a national security issue. A society in which young men are radicalised against women is a society that becomes more violent, fractured and dangerous for us all. We are at a critical juncture. The question before us is clear: do we allow the likes of Andrew Tate, Donald Trump, Elon Musk and others to profit from poisoning the minds of our young people, or do we stand up for our children, our country, our democracy and the very fabric of our society? The Government must act, and act now. So I ask: what is stopping us? If not now, when? The time to act is today, for the sake of our children and, indeed, our very democracy.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise from the Back Benches for the first time in many years, having resigned from my position as Minister for Development and for Women and Equalities. The view is “much better from here”, as the late, great Robin Cook said, but I do deeply regret that I could not continue to serve in the Government for which I campaigned for so long. I wish my successors, Baroness Chapman and Baroness Smith, all the very best. I will not try their patience—or indeed yours, Madam Deputy Speaker—by reprising the contents of my resignation letter, but I do want to explain why I have chosen to break my silence during this debate.
The new Government entered office at a time of unprecedented geopolitical and economic flux. There is no muscle memory in Government, or indeed in politics, for the instability we are currently seeing, and as democracy backslides globally, instability is the new normal. It demands a strategic, not tactical, response. Economically, I believe, as I set out in my letter, that we must be prepared to reassess shibboleths, whether on the fiscal rules, as Germany has done, or on taxation, especially when the very best-off are seeing so little impact on their wellbeing from the economic headwinds.
In addition, we must work with our allies—particularly in Europe but also beyond—to build our resilience on defence production and exports, with productivity growth hammered by post-Brexit impediments to trade and now, as we have heard this morning, with US-imposed tariffs. From Turkey to Somalia, people are desperate for democracy, stability and economic growth. In supporting them, we also support our country’s security.
I therefore regret that, on top of the huge cut to official development assistance that led to my resignation, the shift to a cash basis may limit resources further. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to work closely with other countries to bridge some of that gap, but it must include radical action to tackle indebtedness, increase financial guarantees, protect lifesaving health services, and to support and reform multilateral bodies as they come under attack from autocrats.
I believe that we need the same strategic approach—not tactical—when it comes to the protection of our democracy. Last summer saw the worst racist riots in our country since the second world war. None of us can forget the appalling scenes when racist thugs set fire to hotels knowing that people remained inside, and all in the name of three poor beautiful little girls—may they rest in peace. The policing and criminal justice response was swift, and I commend the Government for that, but in this case and others the influence of social media has not been fully digested, let alone acted upon.
There are many other canaries choking down the coalmine, not least due to the growth and impact of violent online misogyny. Here I commend the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) not just for her steadfast campaigning, but for the fact that even as she has received such appalling abuse herself, she continues to stand for women and girls. I stand in solidarity with her, as should all Members in this Chamber.
Considerable progress is being made to defend democracy by the new Government, through: the taskforce of that name; the joint election security and preparedness unit; the foreign influence registration scheme that was released a couple of days ago; the Speaker’s Conference focused particularly on the safety of candidates; and the new ban on the creation, as well as the sharing, of sexually explicit deepfakes, whether they are focused on politicians or other victims. But attempts to degrade our democracy have involved actors from states that are not classified as hostile, and they have taken place outside election times, too. Policy must deal not with how things were 10 years ago, but with the reality of an online world that is having huge offline consequences.
First, I agree with the hon. Lady that we lack tools to deal decisively with the growth in disinformation. The Online Safety Act does includes measures to protect content of democratic importance, but without a clear definition of that content, and with Ofcom’s advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation apparently not having met yet, that must be remedied speedily, given that over half of people now receive news through social media, and that rises to 82% of young people. Recommender algorithms, as she said, privilege engagement above all else, and extreme content engages more. I urge the Government to consider including independent audits of recommender algorithms, as contained in the EU’s Digital Services Act but not in our Online Safety Act.
Secondly, our new legislative regime, although welcome, relies on an antiquated separation of large and small platforms. Last summer showed how the far right often switch from Telegram to YouTube to Rumble, and to other platforms large and small. When they spread disinformation, they do not keep it only on large platforms, so regulators should be prepared to act on small platforms, too.
Thirdly, the new regime was created when the major complaint against platforms was that they were failing to heed their own rules. Now, powerful platform owners are ditching rules and firing compliance officers, and are themselves pumping out disinformation. There are no minimum standards in the new regime for platforms’ terms of service. I urge the Government to look again at that, with the care that I know the Minister always displays.
Finally, we must work more closely with others seeking to protect their democracies, from Helsinki to Rio, Tallinn to Ottawa, and Chisinau to Berlin. In that vein, paralleling the Prime Minister’s push for a UK-EU defence partnership, we surely also need a UK-EU structured dialogue on digital policy and the defence of our democracies.
In conclusion, I remain grateful to the Prime Minister and my party for providing me with eight months where I could seek to serve my country as a Minister of State. That was only possible because my constituents in Oxford East afforded me, through their free choice, the opportunity to represent them. Voters’ free choice, taken for granted so often in our country but so precious, is what is ultimately at risk if we fail to defend our democracy.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for an excellent opening speech. It almost made me feel like putting down my own speech, because I thought there was nothing more I could contribute. I thank her so much for that introduction.
It is worth saying that the people who will be speaking in this debate are probably not fearful of technology itself. I consider myself a digital native: I grew up with MSM and Myspace, and I enjoy the connectivity that social media brings to us all. It has transformed our society in ways that are for the good, but without a doubt we do have a problem: we have a big problem with content, we have a big problem with addiction, and, as the hon. Lady articulated so clearly, we have a problem with power.
I will begin with content. There has been a huge rise in the level of hate, misogyny, violence and pornography we are seeing on our social media feeds. I am certain that I am not imagining that. I am sure that the stuff that pops up on my “For you” feed on X was not there a few years ago, prior to Musk’s ownership. The sorts of things that have been pushed towards me as a youngish man are an absolute disgrace. A few months ago, there was a knife crime incident in my community, just yards away from my office. The footage of it circulated online within minutes. Again, I am sure I am not kidding myself that a handful of years ago that piece of content would eventually have been taken down. Today, Meta-Facebook has shown no interest in taking that down. That shocking footage is still circulating around my community, and shame on them for that.
That sort of content rises to the top of algorithms because it is emotionally charged: it disgusts, it enrages and it sparks fear. That works for social media companies, because that is how they generate their profit. When we apply that kind of emotionally charged content to news, it is no longer judged by its veracity or the insight it provides, but by its ability to provoke, with the result that misinformation travels much more quickly than the truth.
On addiction, we have to understand that this form of emotional engagement is new. There are people out there who say that we have always had emotionally engaging content via TV, radio and newspapers, but the type that happens on these platforms is genuinely new because it is addictive by design. Once upon a time, the brightest minds in the world all wanted to work in law and medicine. Now many of them are working for big tech companies, trying to work out the circuitry of our brains to keep us addicted to their platforms. They do that because we do not pay for those platforms, but we do pay for them with our attention. The more we look at their platforms, the more ad revenue they generate. That is new, and we need new regulation to address it.
The second, interrelated element of addiction is the way it interacts with algorithms. We funnel people down echo chambers and reduce their exposure to the other person’s view. Ultimately, that damages critical analysis and leads to the kind of polarisation that I believe we are seeing in our politics today. With unregulated content full of misinformation being supplied to people incessantly, as we remain addicted to our devices and stuck in bubbles, we think to ourselves, “Just imagine how dangerous this could be if the technology got into the wrong hands.” But, of course, it already has.
As a liberal, I am always sceptical of concentrations of power, because we know how vulnerable it leaves society. We have somehow allowed big tech to make the argument to us and to Governments across the world that its oligopolistic power over this industry is justified—a natural order, somehow, and something we should make an exception for in our global economy. In doing so, we have allowed a handful of firms to dominate the digital world. They control huge amounts of our personal data, and now they control our discourse, too.
As has been mentioned, the vast majority of 18 to 24-year-olds use social media as their primary news source. As each generation passes, the role of TV, newspapers and radio will only continue to diminish. I was at a careers fair at a local school the other day, and a young kid came up to me—he must have been about 13 years old. Almost immediately, he started talking to me about Donald Trump in a positive way. When I asked him where he was hearing all this stuff, he of course answered, “TikTok”. His mates all giggled, because they were all doing exactly the same thing. I do not think we are treating this with the seriousness that we need to.
I will make just one more remark about the media environment. Lots of the more clickbaity outlets generate their revenue not by the quality of their content, but by how many people they manage to get on to their website. That is how they get ad revenue. Many of the more considered—and, perhaps, critical—publications are often behind a paywall. This situation is driving a lot of our public conversation at the moment, because of what media is available to people for free. If most people are getting their news from these digital platforms, we are left at the whim of those in charge of those platforms. Those people not only have control of their platforms to manipulate our discourse, but have huge amounts of personal wealth, and can, sadly, interfere with politics in a way that people have always been able to: through donations and the influence of their personal wealth. This is a double-edged sword for us.
As we have seen, this kind of wealth and influence has had real-world impacts. Most recently, we have seen Elon Musk’s role in the US elections; if we think back a bit further, there was a kind of intransigence from Facebook over the dark ads that ran during the Brexit campaign, when nobody knew who was responsible for running those campaigns for some time. As was explained earlier, the organised pile-ons and everyday disruption attempt to silence politicians in their contributions to everyday debates.
Over the past few years, it felt like we were starting to make some progress in society on this topic; we had the formulation and introduction of the Online Safety Act, and it felt like greater efforts were being made to check the power of social media giants. However, right now, it feels like we are about to go backwards again. In reaction to the election of President Trump, we saw Meta rolling back its moderation capabilities. In the UK, legislation such as the Online Safety Act and the Digital Services Act—some of the few tools we have in our toolbox to tackle these social media giants—are up for discussion as part of a wider trade negotiation with the US. We must fight hard to keep those tools in our toolbox and keep those protections, but we are kidding ourselves if we think those alone will be enough.
A free press is a fundamental pillar of a liberal democracy, and these digital platforms are threatening it. As well as protecting the legislation we already have, this House needs to start talking about what further action we can take. Without it, all our places are under threat.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for bringing this debate to the Chamber.
Throughout history, from the printing press to social media, technological advancements have often outpaced the laws meant to regulate them. Today, digital platforms evolve at a speed that outstrips Governments’ abilities to fully understand or regulate their impact—especially concerning for democracy, which depends on informed citizens making choices shaped by debate. Yet democracy is increasingly undermined by bad faith actors, misinformation and manipulation.
As digital natives and future voters, young people face particular risks, and Governments owe them a duty of care to help them to develop in an informed and safe way online. However, older citizens with less experience of social media and newer tech platforms can also face difficulties in how they interact and interpret information or disinformation. In addition to the risks of early forms of digital platforms for democracy, such as the spread of misinformation, contemporary digital platforms now possess novel risks such as deepfakes, AI bots and short- form video content. I will focus my speech on how this situation relates to our democratic engagement.
In Scotland, 16-year-olds have the right to vote in local and national elections; with the Government’s manifesto promising votes at 16 in UK elections, it is important to consider the impact of digital platforms on young voters and the younger generations who will one day become voters. It will not surprise many to hear that young people are extensive users of digital platforms and that their online habits are evolving rapidly. According to Ofcom, 86% of 9 to 16-year-olds use social media, and even among children as young as 5 to 7, a third are now active online. Platforms such as TikTok and Discord are increasingly shaping young people’s understanding of the world, including politics. Ofcom reports that children aged 5 to 15 are now spending an average of five hours and 24 minutes a day engaged in social media activity.
It is right to note that there are benefits to the use of digital platforms by young people in our political system. These platforms allow young people access to the entire sum of human knowledge, and therefore have real scope as a great source of education and knowledge. They can not only provide helpful information and analysis on our politics, but act as a new means of getting young people engaged and interested in our democratic system.
Despite these benefits, it remains the case that there are real risks and harms associated with children’s use of social media and their outlook on democracy. Recent TV shows such as “Adolescence” have highlighted that digital platforms can act as echo chambers where extremist communities can influence young people’s ideas and opinions. A recent survey published by the University of Glasgow’s John Smith centre, based in my constituency, found that nationally, 57% of 16 to 29-year-olds would prefer to live in a democracy; that said, 27% of those surveyed would prefer to live in a dictatorship. The fact that more than a quarter of this age group would prefer to live in a system completely juxtaposed to our own democracy should be a warning to us all. In difficult times globally, with uncertainty and disruption to previously accepted patterns of international, national and local environments, the lure of simplistic but dangerous solutions promoted by bad faith actors can be all too persistent.
I welcome the actions taken to address these challenges by committing both to making the digital world a safer place for young people and to delivering real, tangible improvements in their lives through other policy initiatives, but we must work harder as we move forward to respond to the ever-changing environment of online activity that we face. Social media giants must be held accountable for the role their platforms play in shaping public discourse, and no tech executive should be above the law.
I commend the efforts of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley in securing this Backbench Business debate and introducing it today. We must not only protect young people—and, in fact, all citizens—from harm online, but equip them with the tools to shape their future, assuming they are not just passive consumers of digital content, but informed and engaged citizens in our democracy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), first for securing this debate and giving us all an opportunity to participate, and secondly for her passion for the subject matter. I am pleased to be here to represent my constituency—the two of us are representing the entirety of Northern Ireland here—and I commend her for her courage, her speech and her determination to be a spoke- sperson for many.
The rise of digital platforms and their use has been of concern for many years, recently more than ever. I am probably the oldest person in this Chamber, and we are talking about issues that I never faced in my youth, but my children face them, and my grandchildren will. Information is distributed online so readily, and it is easily accessed by anyone, whatever their age. The spread of false, damaging and vile information shapes how the public form their opinions, and there is so much work to be done on this matter. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) referred to that in her introduction.
In a survey just last week, Members of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland, both male and female, were asked whether they had been subject to high levels of abuse. Some said that if they had known that the abuse would be so bad, they would never have entered politics. If that does not tell us about the amount of abuse and vile comments targeted at both men and women, nothing does.
I have recently seen numerous disgusting comments on social media about many politicians, including me and others in my party. They were written by keyboard warriors—heroes who hide behind their keyboards—of all ages and backgrounds. In the past week, I have had nothing but admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). She has been an inspiration not only to Members, but to young women across the United Kingdom who have faced personal online abuse. She has been so courageous. I watched her and Naomi Long, the Minister of Justice in the Northern Ireland Assembly, on “The View” last Thursday night when I got home. Both of them were excellent. They epitomise the sort of people who are at the receiving end of vile abuse. Families have to read abuse about a loved one. There must be zero place in society for that abuse. I hope the Minister will acknowledge how much work there is to be done on this matter.
We have seen the rise of social media over the past 10 to 15 years, and its impact on children. As a grandfather of six, I very much understand why we must protect our children. I look to the Minister, who is a mother, to reassure us on this matter. I know that she appreciates how big an impact social media has on our children and grandchildren. Although social media has obvious benefits —it teaches digital skills and gives us the ability to communicate, which are good things—the mental health issues that flow from it are shocking. Anxiety and depression are at an all-time high among children. When I saw the stats for Northern Ireland, I had to question them. I am sure the figures are similar for the United Kingdom. Children as young as eight, nine and 10 are suffering from anxiety issues and depression. We see more suicide and thousands of instances of cyber-bullying. I heard the hon. Member for Lagan Valley comment on the new Netflix show “Adolescence”. The traction it has gained is incredible, and she should be commended.
There are lessons to be learned on mental health, the dangers of social media and friendships and relationships. Perhaps there could be more onus on our schools to deliver such material. When the Minister responds, perhaps she can tell us what discussions she has had with Education Ministers to ensure that the issues are directly addressed at school.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) said about mobile phones. I am convinced that the issue has to be addressed directly. I know that schools in Northern Ireland are running pilot schemes in which phones are removed from the children and put in pouches, and then returned at the end of the day. If our Education Minister, Paul Givan, can see that this has to be done, then, with the greatest of respect, it should be done here as well.
As an elected representative, I can say that, yes, it is important to have an online presence to engage with local businesses and constituents, but I have very limited engagement with social media. That may be because it is a generational matter, or because I have seen the devastation that social media can cause. There is no secret about the misinformation that is out there. I am probably fortunate that I have limited social media contact, and that I understand the dangers of it.
Freedom of speech is important, but there is a difference between healthy debate and disagreement on the one hand, and the vile and unnecessary comments that we see on social media on the other. In this House, I have always tried to engage with everyone in a suitable way, and to be friendly and respectful of others who have a different opinion.
I have spoken in debates in the Chamber numerous times, including in debate on the Online Safety Bill, about the need for greater regulation of social media. There is a responsibility on the Government, in conjunction with social media companies, to ensure that people are safe, especially our youth; adults should know better, but unfortunately that is not always the case. Young people are impressionable and are inclined to go with crowds. Not only that, but they are growing up in a world where social media is massive, so the correct provisions need to be in place, and I look to the Minister for a response on these matters. I know that I will not be disappointed in her, because she understands the issues; she faces the same issues with her family.
To conclude, there is a huge amount of work to be done. There is a responsibility on us personally, on teachers, on social media companies, and on parents to ensure that online safety is accorded the utmost priority. Addressing this matter is not simply down to the parents. This is a joint effort, and we must work harder together to resolve the issues. I look forward to working closely with colleagues from all parts of this Chamber on this matter, because we all have the same connection and the same goal. I hope the Minister will commit to working with her counterparts in the devolved nations to ensure that we can apply the same strategy everywhere.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate; I know how important this matter is to her and to all of us. We are all representatives of our democracy, and it is crucial that we as a Government address the concerns about the impact of digital platforms on our democratic process.
Sadly, faith in our democracy is being withered away in today’s age of misinformation and disinformation. Even more concerning is the rise of threats and abuse received online by MPs across this House. The abuse takes unique forms for female MPs and for MPs of colour, who are too often the targets of sexist or racist threats of violence. I am not sure whether a declaration is necessary in this case, but I would like to make it known that I am member of the Speaker’s Conference on the security of candidates, MPs and elections, and I commend Mr Speaker for his work in this space.
The anonymity granted to users by online platforms makes perpetrators feel especially confident in their abuse. It also makes it harder to track and identify the worst offenders. Additionally, with the rise of artificial intelligence, bots can be directed to abuse MPs and political candidates en masse. These bots are even more difficult to trace. Directing abuse and threats at MPs is not only hateful; it deliberately undermines our political system. Asthe hon. Member for Lagan Valley says, this is about threats against this House. When we must fear for our safety, the most valuable link in our democracy—that between us and our constituents—is strained. An MP should feel safe in their own community, as should anyone else.
Threats and abuse are not the only issue; online platforms are privy to hordes of personal, sensitive information about their users. For many people, social media is their main source of news. Around 72% of my constituents in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages use Facebook, but we know that Facebook has a troubling history of endangering democracy. We all remember the outrage when Facebook breached the personal information of millions of users, sharing it with the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. This data was then used to target political advertisements in the US presidential campaign of 2016. The breach was not discovered until two years later. For me, this was the first time that I realised just how seriously the political process could be undermined by digital platforms.
Very recently, Meta stated that it would no longer use independent fact checkers. As a result, misinformation runs even more rampant. I am sure that we have all experienced family members sending us posts that present themselves as facts but are often complete nonsense. Sadly, since I became an MP, these have been really targeted at me, so my family and friends will send me pictures of me at the back of rooms looking shadowy. Members will be pleased to know that apparently I recently banned banter. Allowing misinformation to run rife leads directly to a loss of faith in our democratic institutions, and to a rise in extremism. To reiterate the point I made about me looking shadowy in the corners, it is a problem for all political parties when individuals are personally targeted, particularly women and people of colour, as those groups face specific attacks.
It is obvious that social media has the capacity to influence elections, and that it can be a medium for abuse and threats. I know that many friends from across the Chamber will have experienced this at first hand. It is therefore crucial that action is taken to curb abuse and misinformation.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case about the risks associated with social media platforms. Companies too often seem to have all the agency and none of the accountability for what we see on their platforms. We see these platforms pushing more and more extreme content to people through their algorithms. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time we saw checks and balances applied to the social media giants?
Leigh Ingham
My hon. Friend reminds me of something my sister-in-law recently told me. She saw a story on Instagram about a girl’s experience in a relationship. My brother received a completely separate version of the story. It was targeted by gender. There was a disparity in the narratives being pushed. My sister-in-law mentioned how weird it was that they both got the story on the same day, but with different narratives being pushed.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is giving an excellent, emotional speech—its excellence is her trademark—highlighting this problem, and I am sorry to hear about the issues she has faced. Does she agree that when Members of Parliament are targeted in this way, it affects not only them but their families? As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said, that puts people off getting involved in politics, which cannot be a good thing for democracy.
Leigh Ingham
I thank my hon. Friend for his point, and I completely agree. I am particularly passionate about getting more women into politics. It is something I will constantly bang on about. A number of women have said to me, “I don’t want to put myself in that position.” In fact, when I was considering standing for this place, it was one of the things I was most nervous about. I am not a huge user of social media platforms, and have never really put my life out there in that way, so I was incredibly nervous about standing for a political role, because I did not want to expose myself or my family in that way. My hon. Friend makes a very valid point.
In the old days, we had coffee shops and pubs in which to disagree over politics, but the rise of social media has meant that, today, people often get their information online, and have political conversations online. A quiet conversation in a pub or a coffee shop does not reach thousands of people within seconds. Social media has meant that the very nature of political discourse has changed, because the medium has changed.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I apologise for not being here in the early part of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am so moved by what the hon. Lady says. The truth is that the discourse she describes has been brutalised. Complex ideas have been made simple—or at least apparently simple—and malignance has been given licence, exactly as she said. My advice to any new Member of this House is: do not get involved. I am not involved in social media at all, but I have an immense profile in my constituency, because I occupy the real world, not the virtual world. Real-world contact with people is always more valued and more valuable.
Leigh Ingham
I agree with the right hon. Member. I host a lot of community coffee mornings in my constituency, in which we discuss complex ideas, rather than three-word solutions to very complex problems.
Social media is here to stay. The next thing we do must be to regulate it appropriately. It is our duty as Members of this House to ensure that our constituents still have an avenue through which to share their opinions. I agree with the hon. Member for Lagan Valley about disagreeing with people—it is an incredibly important feature of our democracy—but we must enforce guidelines that protect users from harmful content, misinformation and abuse. Ultimately, we must restore faith in our political process. By improving the discourse, we can improve our democracy. I look forward to hearing the Minister outline the Government’s plans to tackle this issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am imposing an immediate five-minute limit. I call Manuela Perteghella.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on introducing this timely and urgent debate.
As we know, the digital age has brought about an unprecedented opportunity for campaigns of any kind, including campaigns of nefarious origins and by malign agents who seek to undermine democracy and the safety of our people. Digital platforms are proliferating at a rapid pace and reaching an unprecedented number of British citizens. They have become the most powerful communication tool of our age and are able to absorb vast amounts of detailed personal information about their users. Further, the platforms can apply complex algorithms to create tailor-made campaigns and personally targeted advertisements and content. That can include spreading conspiracy theories, extreme content and abuse towards citizens and elected officials.
Regrettably, successive Governments have not been proactive in tackling the threat. They have been complacent with inertia and inaction, while tech and social media giants have spread misinformation and outright lies. They have let their digital platforms incite hatred and digital and physical violence, and they have caused riots on our streets. The digital world is the last frontier—wide open for exploitation by domestic and foreign powers who do not have Britain’s best interests at heart.
The Russian Government have been accused of orchestrating a widespread campaign of interference and disinformation that seeks to undermine the global order. Last autumn, the head of MI6 warned that the international order is under threat in a way not seen since the end of the cold war, accusing Russia of a reckless campaign of sabotage across Europe. Likewise, Elon Musk recently used his platform to suggest that America should liberate the people of Britain and overthrow the UK Government.
As we have heard, it is not just our democratic processes that are under threat and being targeted but our children too. With violent misogyny, online abuse, radicalisation and sexualisation on these platforms, who is keeping our children safe? The Online Safety Act 2023 must not be watered down in any future trade deal negotiations with the US. Further, the spread of misinformation online has the power to dramatically alter the outcomes of our elections and referendums, and in doing so change the course of this country. Who will take responsibility for the regulation of digital political campaigns? The Electoral Commission says that its focus is on campaign finance, the Information Commissioner’s Office says that its focus is on personal data, and the Advertising Standards Authority says that it does not regulate political adverts.
When we do not regulate to protect our democracy and our children and young people, we rely on companies to regulate themselves. We hope that Facebook’s three-part strategy to target misinformation is robust enough, that Google’s centre for content responsibility takes its job seriously, and that the EU’s fine levied against tech companies for spreading disinformation has any real impact. Unfortunately, our hope will be in vain.
In these unsettling times of global challenges, we must take the protection of Britain and its people into our own hands. We cannot rely on our safety being a priority for any other nation or for unelected tech billionaires. We need regulation and legislation to protect the people of Britain and ensure that our democracy is not affected by lies propagated by groups and individuals who do not have Britain’s best interests at heart.
Effective tech regulation for digital platforms would result in radical real-time transparency for political advertising—for example, on donations and spending. It should result in strong laws on digital safeguarding, especially for young people and children. As America, influenced by its tech billionaires, withdraws from its role as the protector of the free world, let Britain step up to the mark and become a global leader in digital transparency, regulation and safeguarding.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
It is an honour to contribute to this debate on such a critical issue. As the former head of policy for the British Computer Society, this was one of my passion projects. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for bravely bringing this debate to the House, as it affects us all.
As MPs, we have a duty not only to preserve democracy, but to strengthen it. We must safeguard the integrity of public discourse, yet increasingly the conversation is manipulated by a handful of powerful billionaires, unaccountable corporate giants and malicious actors—foreign and domestic—all counting on us to dither and retreat from the scale of the challenge.
Public trust in digital platforms is eroding as the people behind the algorithms that drive the platforms wield unprecedented power and influence over millions without any of the checks and balances by which the rest of our democratic institutions have been shaped for generations. The people behind algorithms that are designed to manipulate or exploit are rewarding sensationalism and division over truth, nuance and meaningful discussion, and doing so with impunity.
Sir John Hayes
The very distinction between fact and fiction is being eroded, and I fear that young people’s consciousness of that is being so damaged that we will be unable to navigate the journey to truth that the hon. Gentleman describes. It is about the great internet giants, but it is also about the keyboard warriors. Umberto Eco described the internet as the “empire of imbeciles”; the trouble now is that people cannot tell the difference between imbeciles and experts.
Dan Aldridge
There is rightly a lot of conversation about children in this space, but we often forget that people generally are having huge problems. Just last weekend I was knocking on doors, and grown men were saying they did not believe anything they read online. They did not believe anything I said. There was no justification. It is a real difficulty, so I absolutely take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. It is important to talk about the people behind the algorithms.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
It is not only important to make the distinction between fact and fiction; does my hon. Friend accept the distinction between the real and fake people who operate in some of these spaces?
Dan Aldridge
Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) mentioned the difficulty of identifying or holding to account the bots and the non-people actors who are causing so many problems.
In debates such as this, I talk about the people behind the algorithms and platforms because it is far too easy to lose perspective and characterise algorithms and digital platforms as something intangible and alien to us, when we are actually in control of them. In 2020, the former Member for Uxbridge, when he was Prime Minister, claimed that a “mutant algorithm” was to blame for the 2020 exam fiasco. It was a masterclass in deflecting blame from the egregious human failure, and from the line of responsibility that tracked right back to the heart of his Government. The consequences still impact the thousands of young people, my constituents included, whose life plans and chances were upended by the hubris of a Government who were enthralled by the promise of tech as a quick fix.
Sensationalist headlines about mutant algorithms serve no one other than those avoiding the finger of blame, and it all comes at the expense of a meaningful space to discuss the issues that truly matter to our constituents, such as the cost of living, the housing crisis and the need for better public services. We must do better.
Online disinformation is a persistent and pernicious threat to our democracy. False narratives spread much faster, and they stick much harder than the truth. Populist snake-oil salesmen hawk false hope online and pervert public perception. They sell simple solutions to complex problems to desperate people. They intentionally undermine our institutions to their own ends.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the people who operate in the background do so on the behalf of our foreign adversaries—countries like Russia and Iran—who outsource this sort of work to sow division inside our society? We should work with the Government as hard as we can to tackle that.
Dan Aldridge
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will get on to that.
Disinformation has become a stealth weapon wielded by hostile states and domestic actors alike to destabilise communities and societies and to undermine democratic norms. We saw the real-world consequences of that just last summer when inflammatory content spread online with impunity, fuelling riots and civil unrest. That serves as a stark warning that disinformation does not remain online but has dangerous real-life consequences. In my constituency, I saw how people manipulated fear in our most vulnerable communities using online platforms to promote their own craven political agendas. I will never forgive them for that.
Leigh Ingham
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a responsibility on all of us who are fortunate enough to be in this place to use our voices proportionately, carefully and with respect, because by using such platforms we have the power to inflame and antagonise, which can make situations worse?
Dan Aldridge
As my hon. Friend knows, I am a very moderate human being. I agree with her. One of the things that I want to do in this place and in my constituency is always look for the positive angle in things, to talk with moderation and to calm community tensions rather than inflame them for political gain. I see much more of the former at the moment, and I am grateful for that.
Stronger regulations, greater transparency and real accountability are essential, but so is meaningful and applicable education and training. One will not be fully effective without the other. Platforms must act in the public interest and have greater ethical oversight and governance rather than simply follow the corporate interests of shareholders. The voices of ordinary citizens, not the interests of the few, must shape our national discourse, and the UK has to push for global consensus where it can in an increasingly challenging and complex world.
Emma Foody
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly impassioned speech, which comes from a place of real experience. As has been mentioned, though, we see an incredibly stark divide in the younger generation. Recent research on generation Z has shown that it is more polarised than ever, with over 25% of young people preferring authoritarianism. Does he agree that it is time to ensure that our young people can access nuanced debate?
Dan Aldridge
Absolutely, we need to create spaces in our schools and our communities for that debate. I am really encouraged by the work of my colleagues in government, including my hon. Friend the Minister, who are taking their responsibilities to the British public seriously and showing an openness to engagement that was sorely lacking under the previous Administration in policies around technology. I look forward to working with my colleagues to take the necessary steps to protect and strengthen our democracy in this digital age.
The Government have a moral duty to act in the public interest on this. Let us work together to restore faith in our democracy and our institutions and show that we are still the masters of our own destiny, even in this brave new digital world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am now imposing an immediate three-minute time limit.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for bringing this important debate to the Chamber and for her courage. As we have heard, the Netflix show “Adolescence” has been a wake-up call for many about social media’s dangerous impact on our world view and beliefs. A young boy groomed online by an incel culture that is hostile to women murders a female classmate for resisting his prejudice against women.
Campaigners have recently warned of this issue. Months before “Adolescence” was released, Zero Tolerance’s “Many Good Men” report highlighted the need to better regulate platforms that spread misinformation and radicalisation. That is of particular importance for young people, including those in my constituency of Mid Dunbartonshire, as nearly 60% of them rely on social media as their primary information source, including for news, as we have heard.
If radical content already fuels violence against women and girls, we must be aware of its effect on democracy. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) referenced research at Glasgow University. Recent work by King’s College London showed that over half of generation Z think that the UK would improve under a strong leader who is unconstrained by Parliament or elections. More worryingly, when explicitly asked if they would prefer a dictatorship, 6% said yes. Yet, when questioned on that stance, they clarified that they simply wanted a leader who could effect change quickly, as current progress is too slow. This should not come as a surprise. After all, they are bearing the brunt of a mental health crisis, soaring house prices and a brutal jobs market.
It is clear that a poor online environment reflects a poor real-world environment. Individuals of all ages, frustrated by their circumstances, look for something to blame, be it women, immigration or democracy, in sentiment driven by social media giants and the far-right populists who exploit young people’s frustrations.
The solutions to social media’s erosion of democracy lie in the real world. The John Smith Centre stresses that politicians should be more open and transparent and address young people’s housing and employment concerns to reduce disillusionment. If we ignore their challenges, social media will continue to undermine our democracy and draw our young people into increasingly extreme environments.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for raising this important issue.
It is all too tempting to believe that democratic processes were once stronger, more resilient or perhaps more civil, but I do not think nostalgia is a particularly practical strategy. Nor, however, can we assume that progress towards a better world is natural and without setbacks. It is our responsibility as legislators not simply to comment on history but actively to shape it, particularly when we are confronted with new and complex challenges.
The impact of digital platforms on our democracy represents precisely such a challenge. They promised to democratise the debate and give every citizen an equal voice, but the reality has been far more complicated and, I would argue, more destabilising than democratising. Polling by More in Common has revealed that 72% of Britons believe that social media negatively impacts young people, and even more people showed a strong appetite for greater accountability from tech companies, particularly regarding misinformation and online harm. Ofcom’s latest findings show that three in 10 children aged eight to 17 encountered harm online in the last month. That is not abstract; just because it is online does not mean it is not a real harm. We do not allow it offline, so we should not allow it online. Social media companies have enormous power to influence the public debate. Their platforms have too often facilitated harmful content—hate speech, misinformation and abuse—and the reality is that they continue to profit from division and outrage. We should expect a lot better from such influential businesses.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, so I am subjected to a particular kind of abuse that gives me the tiniest glimpse into what it is like to be either Jewish, or indeed any minority, in the UK. I just ignore most of it because it is so widespread, but occasionally I will get something and think, “That is really not acceptable”, and I will report it.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
There has been a lot of comment in the debate about the impact on Members’ families. My hon. Friend is talking about her experiences of abuse in her role as an APPG chair. Does she agree that her staff are also exposed to that?
Joani Reid
I absolutely agree.
I want to give Members a sense of what I have reported to X, which I have been told does not meet its threshold for action and I can just block the accounts if I want to. Here are some of the comments being directed at me:
“Why are Jews allowed to invest in politicians in the UK?”
“Are you Jewish? Most Jewish children are weak and neurotic and struggle to understand things the way advanced Aryan children do.”
“You are not well-bred. You are 1/4 tainted of Jewish blood. This softens the heart and darkens the soul.”
In relation to the Holocaust, I have been told it “didn’t happen, mate.” That didn’t reach X’s harmful content threshold and was allowed to continue.
These people operate with impunity in this country. Transparency in the algorithms, proactive content moderation and genuine co-operation with regulators such as Ofcom should absolutely not be optional. Tech companies must understand that accessing our markets and citizens carries clear responsibilities and that if they want to operate here, they need to obey the law of our land. This is not about stifling innovation or freedom; it is about—
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The strength of our democracy lies in its people—their voices, concerns and participation. The Labour party that I know has always been a party of the grassroots, particularly in Cornwall, and of real individuals engaging with real communities. We are not the party of faceless bots, anonymous profiles or foreign interference. Yet, as we reflect on last year’s general election, we must confront the unsettling reality that the integrity of our democratic process is under threat from hostile actors and unaccountable digital platforms, such as those we have heard about today.
In my constituency I have seen the manipulation at first hand. The administrators of the local Reform UK Facebook group—supposedly representing my constituency —are not local at all. Not a single one that I can see has anything to do with my constituency. Many cannot even be identified as real individuals. This is not grassroots activism; it is astroturfing—an insidious form of political manipulation where orchestrated campaigns masquerade as spontaneous grassroots movements, misleading and deceiving the public.
That is not an isolated case. Across the UK, our election was tainted by misinformation on an unprecedented scale. These were not spontaneous expressions of a democratic electorate, but the work of malign domestic and foreign actors, deliberately interfering to distort the public discourse. The power of those platforms to spread falsehoods rapidly and without scrutiny undermines trust in our political system.
Undoubtedly, the owners of the platforms wield immense influence on our public discourse. Their decisions on content moderation, as we have heard, shape what information is disseminated and trusted. The fact that one such owner has openly endorsed figures convicted of hate crimes, such as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, is appalling, signalling how those with immense digital influence can amplify those voices. These are not neutral platforms but ideological battlegrounds, and right now the scales are tipped in favour of disinformation. Labour stands for a different vision of politics; a politics built on real people, engagement and communities.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
A serious allegation was made recently that Liberal Democrats spend too much time in our communities fixing church roofs and are not on Twitter. Well, last night I logged back on, and let me tell the House that Twitter was absolutely brilliant. The quality and depth of political debate really was something to behold. Liberals and authoritarians, nationalists and internationalists, and people from the economic right, left and centre were engaging in well-informed, expansive and thoughtful debate about the most pressing issues of the day. I jest, of course—it was a total waste of time for everybody involved, including me.
Elon Musk has made Twitter useful for some people, though. I refer to those on the hard right of politics, who are profiting by sowing the seeds of division. They are not just profiting politically, but lining their pockets with the money of social media barons. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have already told the Member to whom I am about to refer that I intend to refer to him today, because his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests is revealing. The leader of Reform, the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), has declared more than £10,000 in earnings from one particular source since he was elected. The address of the payer is in Market Square. I know what Members are all thinking: “It’s the charming covered market in Clacton”. No, that closed in 2022. It is Elon Musk’s X, based in Market Square in San Francisco, California. He has also declared more than £14,000 in earnings from Google, £98,000 from Cameo, based in Chicago, and more than £2,700 from Meta in California.
One wonders where the Member for Clacton finds the time. As a 2024 intake MP, I encounter colleagues who basically do not have time to go to the loo. On a more philosophical note, for someone who claims to be a patriot, he is certainly taking a lot of money from international sources. That should give us all pause for thought when we consider the impact of digital platforms on democracy. We might conclude at the very least that it distracts some MPs from doing their actual job—and I do not mean the distraction of doom-scrolling; I mean the distraction of the grift.
What of the broader threats presented by social media platforms? We have spoken on many occasions recently about the issues that young men face and the impact on democracy. It is my belief that, at heart, those issues are the symptoms of many problems, including the tone of debate about the roles and responsibilities of boys as they become men, a lack of routes to secure employment, and ludicrously high housing and rental prices. For someone who is stuck in their childhood bedroom looking for reasons why their life is rubbish, the digital world has no shortage of scapegoats: women, minorities, LGBT+ people, immigrants, foreigners, refugees, disabled people, the weak, single-parent families—the list goes on.
There is also no shortage of snake oil salesmen out there to tell them who to blame and what they can do about it. Andrew Tate tells us it is the fault of women. I can tell any young men listening at home that nobody outside the manosphere wants to see pictures of bald middle-aged men with their tops off—I know from personal experience. My social media followers and, more importantly, my friends left me in no doubt about what a plonker I looked after I posted a photo of myself at Cheltenham Lido. Those who idolise Tate would do well to heed that advice.
Jordan Peterson, another big thinker on the right, gives brilliant advice to young men. He tells them they must make themselves physically strong so that they can find a mate and get rich and powerful, or they will end up dying poor and alone, perhaps with melted brains like crustaceans defeated in a violent fight in the depths of the ocean. I am pretty sure that is not true. The lads should not worry about it, but so many do, thanks to these snake oil sellers online.
Thanks to President Trump and those who argue for a bizarre form of freedom of speech—just not for everyone—the truth is now a contested concept, and it is intertwined with fear and hatred, which are both a threat to our democracy. We all know where the truth goes to die: whichever social media platform you like. You just start posting outlandish stuff. You keep going. You double down. You find a mad and hateful narrative. You tell everyone it is free speech, and before you know it, you might be lucky enough to become a successful online grifter with your top off. Perhaps you will be an MP, or maybe even the President of America.
Two days ago it was April fool’s day. I hate April fool’s day, because the world is now so ludicrous that we do not know what is a joke and what is not. Even worse, what we post as a joke might end up being shared so many times that it becomes somebody else’s truth eventually. In the worst case, that becomes part of a hate-fuelled conspiracy theory. I will not mention it; everyone here knows what it is. There are many increasingly popular conspiracy theories online that have nothing to do with hatred but are plainly bizarre. I will not name them here for the sake of all our inboxes, but every single one of those outlandish claims is a threat to our democracy, and those views are going round the world quicker and quicker thanks to social media.
What should we in this place be doing about it? While digital and social media platforms can be good for democracy, they are inherently vulnerable to misinformation and abuse, and they reduce the quality of public debate. We need look no further than the riots following the tragic Southport attacks. That tragedy for those little girls and their families was compounded for so many by what happened in the following days, when people were whipped up into a frenzy by false rumours leading to more violence. Musk’s X, Zuckerberg’s Meta and other social media companies facilitate that spreading of misinformation, and they have made it entirely clear to all of us that they do not care.
Let us face it: platforms such as TikTok and Snapchat are making our children sad and depressed, they are putting a check on the development of the adults of the future, and they absolutely cannot be trusted. Musk used his purchase of Twitter to further leverage his influence over the world’s largest democracy. He changed the rules to boost his own posts and push aside those he disagrees with—freedom of speech, but for some more than others.
From his own platform, the world’s richest man has made several direct interruptions in our democracy. Last summer he sought to further incite disorder, posting that in the UK “Civil war is inevitable”. He also called for America to
“liberate the people of Britain”
and overthrow the UK Government, and he has suggested he might bankroll the Reform party. While I have some sympathy for Ministers dealing with Trump, do they really think it is wise to be so gentle with him when his right-hand man, Musk, has called for them to be forcibly ejected from office? I realise that Ministers are limited in what they can say, but I am pretty sure I know what they think. Regardless of diplomatic norms, this is plainly absurd. Worse than that, it makes our once strong nation look weak.
What should we do? Social media companies must take a larger role in tackling misinformation. It is clear that they will not do it without Government intervention, and they need to get on with it. Liberal Democrats believe that stricter regulations must be introduced to ensure that they properly challenge the spread of misinformation on their platforms. We must stand up to them. We must intervene to protect our democracy. As a liberal, I believe that unchecked power and wealth are inherently dangerous, and I often take my whip from John Stuart Mill, who warned:
“the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods…which all experience refutes.”
We must heed that warning.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this important debate. Digital platforms can both enhance and undermine democracy. Social media can increase awareness of elections and candidates, encouraging participation and voter turnout, but it can also lead to the abuse of democratically elected MPs, councillors and politicians. Even more worrying is the threat of electoral interference from malign international actors. I am grateful to Members from all parties who took part in what was an incredibly thoughtful and interesting debate on such an important issue.
For reasons of time I cannot reflect on everyone’s speech, but I wish to pay particular heed to three Members who have spoken. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley for her incredibly powerful speech, and I am sorry about the abuse, attacks and threats she has experienced. Any attack or abuse to an MP is an attack on our democracy. We have brilliant representatives in this place. I am proud to be a Member of this, the greatest Parliament in the world, and there is a duty on us to stand up for our fellow colleagues, Members across the House, and elected representatives at all levels. I particularly thank her for mentioning Jo Cox and David Amess. I was elected after Jo Cox was murdered, but I did get to meet David Amess before he was murdered, and I still have a letter that he sent me when I was elected as a new MP. I know that he and Jo Cox are very much missed by us all. Sadly, what happened to them clearly drives home the importance of ensuring that we deal with these problems and get this right.
Later in my speech I will pick up on one of the points that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley raised about disinformation and misinformation, as well as digital watermarking. She also raised important points about how social media operates. I have often thought that we need to think about anonymity and privacy separately in terms of people using a platform and its content.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who used her speech, in part, to make some comments regarding her resignation. Principles are not principles unless we act on them, and I hope she has the opportunity to serve in His Majesty’s Government again at some point in the future. There have been so many brilliant speeches, and I would like to reference everybody but cannot due to time. However, some remarks by the hon. Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid) jumped out at me, particularly the quote that she read out in this Chamber, and those vile comments. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that when she winds up the debate, and said what reassurance she can give the House that the issue is being dealt with appropriately by the digital online platforms.
Protecting the integrity of our elections and stopping the influence of malign and foreign actors is a critical role for the Government, and it is the Government’s responsibility to work closely with the Electoral Commission, and others, to protect the integrity, security and effectiveness of UK referendums and elections. The Electoral Commission has a wide range of investigatory and civil sanctioning powers, and the Government are able to refer more serious matters to the police or the National Crime Agency. As outlined in the previous Government’s response to the report on Russia by the Intelligence and Security Committee, the UK’s adversaries adapt a whole-of-state approach to hybrid and malign activity. Therefore, tackling it requires a cross-Government, cross-society response.
To respond effectively, the Government need to draw on the skills, resources and remits of different Departments, agencies and non-governmental organisations. Considering the current geopolitical landscape, it is essential that the Government keep all aspects of their approach to protecting democracy under review so that they can quickly adapt to any new threats that emerge.
The UK is not alone in facing this issue; democracies across the western world are facing the same issue. Political parties are successfully harnessing the impact of social media to reach cohorts of voters who are normally uninterested or disillusioned. That is a good thing, but countries are facing interference from other states, including Russia and China, so how should Governments respond?
The previous Government were resolute in defending our country from hostile state activity. The Elections Act 2022, which they brought forward, restricts third-party campaigning to UK-based groups and eligible overseas electors, so that only those with legitimate interests in UK elections can campaign at UK elections. It also contains new measures requiring digital imprints on online campaign material and greater transparency in political funding. The previous Government also passed the world-leading Online Safety Act, to which many Members have referred. Its provisions have only recently come into force and I hope this Government will continue to actively monitor what Ofcom is doing to ensure the Act is working appropriately.
There are also threats from artificial intelligence and disinformation, particularly the ability of AI to create realistic videos and images impersonating trusted public figures, including political and religious leaders. The risks of that are clear for all to see. In Committee, we tabled an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill that would have set up a technological standard on digital watermarks. In part, it was about helping to solve some of the issues around AI and copyright, but it was also about ascribing authenticity to what people are putting on social media. I suspect that, like me, many colleagues from across the House would like to have the ability to put a digital watermark on the material they put out, so that people can be sure that the content they are seeing is from the person who purports to have created it. The Government voted our amendment down, but I hope Ministers will work with us to support such measures going forward.
To conclude, we must ensure that regulations are effective and up to date with the latest technology. We must ensure that the public are made aware of the risks of AI-generated content and deliberate misinformation, and we must tackle foreign interference in our elections. Digital platforms can enhance democracy and it is important that we do not lose sight of that. Like it or not, traditional media is no longer the primary news source for many people; Twitter, Facebook, TikTok and Snapchat are all part of the news ecosystem. If we, as politicians, want better participation in democracy— I believe that all of us want that—we cannot vacate social media, although if I am honest I am very jealous of the people who do not use it, or vacate the online space. Instead, we must ensure that it works for all of us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing the debate. I join her in honouring the memory of our dear colleagues Sir David Amess and Jo Cox. I am grateful to her and to all the other speakers for their incredibly powerful and insightful contributions to the debate.
The Government share the hon. Member’s concerns about the impact that online harassment, intimidation, abuse, misinformation and disinformation have on our democracy. Existing and emerging technologies have led to changes in the information environment and will continue to shape our future, but it is, and will always be, an absolute priority for the UK Government to protect our democracy, and we remain well-prepared to do so with robust systems in place. I was grateful to the hon. Member for sharing her experiences. The House should hear about the online abuse and hate that she has faced. There is no place for that, and I thank her for sharing it.
The Government are committed to combating violence against women and girls. The Online Safety Act requires Ofcom to develop and enforce guidance for tech companies, which aims to ensure that platforms implement measures to reduce harm to women and girls online. The Act imposes legal responsibility on online platforms, including social media platforms, gaming platforms, dating apps and search engines, to protect users from illegal content and material that is harmful to children and to address issues that disproportionately affect women and girls. Those measures reflect the Government’s commitment to creating a safer online environment, acknowledging the unique challenge faced by women and girls in the digital space. In putting that guidance together, Ofcom consulted with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and experts in the field.
The effectiveness of those measures depends on their robust implementation and enforcement, which we will monitor closely. As the hon. Member knows, the implementation of the Online Safety Act started only in spring this year. While we know it is a landmark Act, it is not perfect, so the Government will continue to keep it under review, and we will not shy away from strengthening it where required. As I said, the Act is already being implemented. We will introduce protections to protect people from illegal content, such as child sexual abuse and terrorist material, as well as to protect children from harmful material. I make it clear to the House and to all Members who raised this issue that that is not up for negotiation.
The hon. Member also raised the issue of banning smartphones for under-16s. The Government will consider all options in pursuit of children’s online safety. However, it is important that the Government take evidence-based action in recognition of the need to balance safety with allowing children to use technology positively. I am sure she is also aware that in November last year, the Department announced a study using methods and data to understand the impact of smartphones and social media on children. The study began in December last year and will run for six months until May 2025, and I am sure we will report to the House on that.
I come back to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). I take this opportunity to thank her for all the support she gave me and many of my colleagues when she served on the Front Bench in opposition and when we came into government. I look forward to seeing her on the Front Bench again soon; I hope she does not spend too long on the Back Benches.
My right hon. Friend raised the issue of the unrest last year. During that unrest, the Department worked with major platforms to tackle content contributing to the disorder, which included proactively referring content to platforms that assessed and acted on it in line with their terms of service. Throughout our engagement, we have been very clear that social media platforms should not wait for the Online Safety Act to come into action: they should actively be removing harmful content.
My right hon. Friend also raised the issue of broader international collaboration on online safety, with which I absolutely agree. International collaboration is absolutely crucial in tackling the global threat of online harms, and we must build consensus around approaches that uphold our democratic values and promote a free, open and secure internet.
As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said, since 2022, the Elections Act has protected candidates, campaigners and elected office holders from intimidation, both online and in person. It is an election offence for a person to make or publish, before or during an election, a false statement of fact about a candidate’s personal character or conduct, for the purpose of affecting the return for that candidate at the election, if the person does not believe it to be true. This provides a reasonable check and balance against malicious smear campaigns.
We also have the defending democracy taskforce, which has a mandate to drive forward a whole-Government response to the full range of threats to our democracy. That taskforce reports to the National Security Council and is comprised of Ministers and senior officials, as well as representatives of law enforcement, the UK intelligence community, the parliamentary authorities and the Electoral Commission. In April 2023, the task- force set up the joint election security and preparedness unit—JESP, for short—as a permanent function dedicated to protecting UK elections and referendums. It monitors and mitigates risks related to the security of elections, including those posed by artificial intelligence, misinformation and disinformation. JESP stood up an election cell for the 2024 elections, which co-ordinated a wide range of teams across Government to respond to issues as they emerged, including issues to do with protective security, cyber-threats, and misinformation and disinformation.
An election cell has been stood up for the upcoming local elections. Firm steps are being taken to ensure the security of candidates and campaigners. That happened during last year’s election, and will happen again for the upcoming local elections. Candidates were issued with security advice, and guidance was made available on gov.uk about the risks they face, including from AI and disinformation. That guidance brought together expertise from across the security community, including from the police and the National Cyber Security Centre, to help candidates implement quick and effective personal protective measures. I have only recently looked at that guidance, and I recommend that all candidates take a look. There was also an investment of £31 million over financial year 2024-25 to strengthen protective security measures for MPs, locally elected representatives and candidates.
As reported by the Electoral Commission, last year’s UK general election was delivered safely and securely. Certain novel risks, such as AI-generated deepfakes influencing the outcome, did not materialise. However, in that election, there was unacceptable harassment and intimidation directed at candidates—particularly female candidates—and campaigners, especially online. It is clearly vital that everyone, regardless of their sex/gender or race, feels able to participate in public life. The Home Office is reviewing this activity through the defending democracy taskforce.
We need to better understand the trends, motivations and drivers that cause people to harass and intimidate their elected representatives. That includes identifying gaps and vulnerabilities and developing recommendations to strengthen legislative responses, as well as a clear delineation of online versus in-person activity and its impact. That work will be reported to the taskforce, and my Department has contributed to these efforts to tackle online harms and improve online environments. While the primary responsibility for harmful social media content rests with the individuals and groups who create and post it, social media platforms have a responsibility to keep users safe.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Sorcha Eastwood to quickly wind up.
Sorcha Eastwood
I thank everybody who has contributed to today’s debate, the Backbench Business Committee for giving permission for it, and those who supported the application for it. I also thank the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds)—I was privileged to have her in the Chamber for this debate, and her contribution was really poignant and incredibly moving. I thank the shadow spokespeople, and I thank the Minister for her remarks.
Today should be the start of a conversation and a dialogue. It is clear that everybody in the Chamber is passionate about moving forward on this issue and defending our constituents, our country and our democracy. I look forward to working with everybody across the House on tackling this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of digital platforms on UK democracy.