UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms

Sorcha Eastwood Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.