Online Harms

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

There is no shortage of online harms demanding our attention. I have spoken before about children buying illegal drugs that are openly advertised on social media, the flood of harmful eating disorder content reaching young people, and Ofcom not holding social media companies to account, although it has increased powers to do so under the Online Safety Act. Today, though, I want to focus on another deeply disturbing trend. Men are secretly filming women on nights out and profiting by posting the videos online. These accounts mask themselves as “nightlife content” or “walking tours”, but the videos tell a completely different story; they fixate on women in dresses and skirts, often filmed from behind and from low or intrusive angles. These women have not consented—in most cases, they do not know that they are being filmed—and the scale is staggering. The BBC found that videos such as these have been viewed more than 3 billion times in just three years.

Once they have been uploaded, the abuse begins, with comment after comment dripping with misogyny:

“Look at how these ladies are dressed, no wonder they get attacked”

followed by a laughing emoji,

“They belong to the streets”,

and “Easy meat”. Hundreds of misogynistic comments like these flood the replies beneath nearly every video. This vile practice has victims, and the impact is real. Women who have been filmed in this way say that they no longer feel safe to go out; they feel watched, exposed, vulnerable, distressed and harassed. They no longer enjoy a night out or being in public. We must be clear that secretly filming women in this way is deeply degrading and predatory and must be stopped.

Right now, the law is failing. In 2024, a man was arrested on suspicion of stalking and harassment for this kind of behaviour, but no further action was taken due to limitations in the current legislation. As of now, there is no provision in law to prosecute for covert filming of this nature. This abuse sits in a legal grey area between several different crimes, including voyeurism and harassment, giving this type of video the space to grow. Existing voyeurism offences are framed around private acts or taking intimate images. Harassment laws were not designed to address the recording and mass distribution of this kind of content, so perpetrators slip through the cracks and the problem grows.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill that would have created a specific criminal offence of secretly filming someone without their consent for sexual gratification, or to humiliate or distress them. The Government’s view was that this amendment was too broad. Yes, we must protect the freedom to film in public and legitimate journalism, but we cannot allow that to become an excuse for inaction, because right now women are being targeted, filmed and broadcast to millions without protection. Something must change.

We should look at harassment laws, including how the Public Order Act 1986 can be strengthened to tackle sex-based harassment, both offline and online, because harassment does not stop on the streets—it continues online, often indefinitely. It should be an offence to record and distribute footage of someone without their consent when they are targeted because of their sex and that material is used to objectify and humiliate them and subject them to misogynistic abuse. Women should not have to wonder every time they go out whether they will wake up the next morning to find themselves plastered across the internet in the most distressing and degrading way. It is not beyond the Government’s power to fix this issue, and I urge them to listen and to close this gap in the law, to protect women from this vile misogynistic harassment.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Bedfordshire for securing this important debate.

Online harms are systemic, they are scaled, and they are producing real-world consequences, as we have seen. Social media is now the environment in which young people grow up—it is almost universal when children enter secondary school. According to a consultation by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, 81% of 10 to 12-year-olds are on social media, and 86% have accounts. The Youth Select Committee also did a study on youth violence and social media back in 2024, and found that 97% of 13 to 17-year-olds were online and that 70% of them see real-world violence online. That is a huge number of statistics, but they demonstrate the fact that social media is now in every young person’s bedroom, in their hand and in their pocket.

Professor Sarah-Jayne Blakemore from the University of Cambridge told me that adolescent brains are highly sensitive to the social environment, and the social media companies are probably aware of this. Adolescents’ brains have heightened neuroplasticity, and this will continue until their mid or late 20s. During adolescence, young people are trying to find identity and belonging, and I fear that the tech companies are exploiting this.

Where can we see evidence of harm? The National Education Union did a study called “Big Tech’s Little Victims”, in which researchers created fictional accounts and spent half an hour each day on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube. They found that harmful content appeared within three minutes, and often immediately. Young people in my constituency say, “I do not want to see this harmful content anymore,” yet they are still shown it, so what is going on?

The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Bedfordshire mentioned the “Inside the Rage Machine” documentary, which I have seen a number of times. I am absolutely horrified at what the whistleblowers have revealed.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Lady is making a very powerful speech about how young people, whose brains are still being formed, are being bombarded with online content. May I just let her know that my hon. Friend is actually the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom)? When she mentions him again, she might correct that.

[Dr Sullivan]

My apologies to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom).

I was speaking about “Inside the Rage Machine”. What people have witnessed is remarkable. The documentary makers found that serious exploitation cases were not being prioritised by TikTok, and that algorithms were repeatedly pushing harmful content.

It is not as simple as saying that we must ban children from social media; we need a suite of measures. The core issue is that young people, who are forming their identities, are vulnerable. Addictive algorithms are designed to maximise time and engagement, and they prioritise provocation instead of the truth. Louis Theroux’s Netflix documentary on the manosphere is an incredibly powerful and timely contribution to the debate, and he shows us that the online world is like a gold rush in the wild west. The approach of “hook, identity, monetise” drives profits, with streaming platforms like YouTube rewarding people who spout abominable things. There is a business model behind this, and I think we are all very much aware that we need to do something about it.

Harmful content spreads across platforms, so we need to be very clear about any ban on social media. Last week, the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee looked at the ban in Australia. We learned that because Australia defined which social media companies were to be included, other companies took their place. We can learn from that and it can feed into the Government’s consultation. We have to make the legislation stronger. Bans have limits, because they can be bypassed, as we see in Australia. They also shift the responsibility to the user. Why can we not shift the responsibility to the companies? We should not be banning children from social media; we should be banning the companies from exploiting our children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

The latest Louis Theroux documentary for Netflix, “Inside the Manosphere”, was deeply shocking to many of us who watched it. But it was not remotely shocking for the millions of teenagers to whom his subjects are well known. It was not shocking to my three twenty-something sons; it was not shocking to the boys in the playground; it was not shocking to Gen Z or Gen Alpha; and it was not shocking for children in primary schools, let alone in secondary schools.

That is why this online harms debate should involve everyone, particularly the young people in whose name and on whose behalf we often make laws in this place. Their synapses are dulled to this stuff and their feeds are full of it, which in turn means that the premium for even more shock is higher. Outrage and extremism are hardwired into this business model.

“Inside the Manosphere” exposed that many of these social media influencers are themselves deeply damaged boys, often with a resentment about fathers who were either absent or violent, or both. They project themselves as pro-men, but in doing so they feel the need to project themselves as anti-women. And they are not just anti-women—that is a mild term—but they are virulently, disgustingly misogynistic. They feed off the pornography that, sadly, is seen by all too many of our young boys these days.

What also shocked me, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) pointed out, was just how casual the antisemitism propagated by many of those in the manosphere was.

We saw a chap called Myron Gaines say,

“LOUIS IS A DIRTY J-E-W.”

Louis Theroux is not Jewish, by the way—not that that matters. At one point, another manosphere influencer, Harrison Sullivan, imitates Louis Theroux and leers that he is

“just sat there with his Jew fingers.”

Another of the manosphere influencers blames Jews for feminism, homosexuality and even

“vibrations that are going to negatively bring you down”.

In the conspiracy theory-ridden rabbit hole of the internet, all this is normalised. I thank the Antisemitism Policy Trust for its work in exposing just how much this vile racism has exploded online, and Elon Musk and X share responsibility for much of that. We must take much tougher action against tech giants who are literally profiting from this hatred. Antisemitism is often described as the oldest hatred, but misogyny is just as ancient a hatred. That is why I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who stood up to Grok and Musk when they flouted British laws and put British women and children at risk with those nudification apps.

I am equally proud that my party has been calling out Reform—none of whose Members is present today—for its pledge to repeal the Online Safety Act. I would like to know which protections for children Reform MPs would remove and what, if anything, they would put in their place.

I would also like to know why George Galloway’s Workers party took £5,000 in political donations at the last general election—an election in which I partook in Rochdale—from Andrew Tate’s brother, Tristan.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Can I quickly take the hon. Gentleman back to when he said he was proud of the action his Labour Government have taken? For a long time while they were in opposition, his colleagues advocated making misogyny a hate crime. I assume it was in their manifesto, but I am not quite clear about that. He mentions misogyny as one of the vile things that happen all the time in the manosphere. Why does he not press his Government more to make it a hate crime?

[Paul Waugh]

The Minister for Safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), has repeatedly emphasised the need to crack down on and outlaw misogyny, as have many of my colleagues. There is definitely more work to do on that, but it is a key part of our violence against women and girls strategy.

It was a pleasure to meet the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign last week—including Zack George, aka Steel from “Gladiators”, whom many Members will also have met—to hear why we need further action to protect our kids from the harm that social media can cause. As the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) has already mentioned, harm arises not only from content, but from design features such as algorithmic amplification and endless scroll—features that go beyond a simple age-based ban.

We need to help parents who are desperate for support in combating the daily nightmare of wresting back control from their children’s phones and computers. Suicide ideation, self-harm, pornography, animal cruelty, child sex abuse, anti-Muslim hatred and anti-Jewish hatred are all things that we want to protect our youngsters from seeing online, but we feel powerless in the face of the outrage economy. It is time to stop that sense of powerlessness.

Like the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, I want to praise the BBC’s recent documentary “Inside the Rage Machine”, which reported whistleblowers claiming that Meta made decisions to allow more harmful content on people’s feeds simply because internal research into its algorithms showed that outrage fuelled engagement and monetisation. A TikTok employee gave the BBC rare access to the company’s internal user complaints dashboards, as well as other evidence of staff being instructed to prioritise several cases involving politicians rather than a series of reports of harmful posts featuring children.

I would like to promote the great work that Rochdale borough safeguarding children partnership does to allow parents to access the right tools to protect their children. Other councils across the country are doing similarly great work—solutions are at hand. The Government’s new media literacy action plan should help us all to build resilience against hatred, and the Education Secretary’s recent guidance to schools to be phone free was very welcome indeed.

The Government’s consultation on social media is another huge step forward in creating a healthy relationship between children and the internet. We need to test all the options presented in the consultation so that decisions can be truly evidence based and delivery can be rolled out as effectively as possible. We need to balance the upsides of life online for young people—the friendship groups, the specialised help, and the need to protect free speech—against the very clear downsides.

Finally, we also need to address the offline issues that are often turbo-charged online. For example, why is it that these guys in the manosphere are so popular in the first place? There is the provocation, the riskiness, the sophisticated editing, the addictive nature of their output, the justification that it is “just jokes”, and the get-rich-quick con merchantry of it all. We need to ask how we can provide alternative role models for our boys and young men. How can we help their mental health? How can we repair their trauma? How can we tackle the lack of fulfilling jobs, careers and housing that is so often at the root of scapegoating—whether that is the scapegoating of women, Jews, Muslims, migrants, or their own lack of opportunities?