Online hate, culture of abuse is becoming normalized, study warns
Sportspeople and pundits believe online hate is becoming normalised and say it is significantly impacting how they do their jobs, live their lives and express themselves, according to a new report.
Contributors to a new report by UK watchdog Ofcom say online abuse has had profound offline consequences on them – prompting one individual to barricade themselves indoors, while others reported suffering from disordered eating and feelings of helplessness.
Others said they self-censored online or while broadcasting for fear of being targeted, while some shied away from moving into on-screen roles at all because they feared doing so would increase their risk of being targeted.
Researchers for Ofcom spoke to seven individuals and conducted nine discussion groups with support from anti-discrimination charity Kick It Out. Participants included sportspeople, on-screen commentators, and professionals working in sport and broadcasting.
The respondents felt online abuse was becoming more common, sophisticated and normalised. They also highlighted how they felt the problem was rapidly evolving, with abusers able to evade filters with different phrases, terms and emojis.
One contributor to the report said: 'I didn't leave my house for a week because of the impact of online abuse, the sort of wave (of intensity) and the amount of people that are abusing you.
'And then the media writes about it and then it becomes this sort of overwhelming feeling of just dread that so many people are saying such horrible things about you, without you actually having done anything.'
Respondents felt abusers were becoming bolder because of a perceived lack of consequences for accounts that post it, and were being incentivised to post hateful and abusive content by the business models of online services that monetise engagement.
Among the named contributors to the report were former cricketer Azeem Rafiq, former footballer Eni Aluko and former rugby union referee Wayne Barnes.
Rafiq said nothing could have prepared him for the volume of abuse he received when he spoke out about the racism he suffered while playing at Yorkshire.
Rafiq, who moved from the UK to Dubai because of the abuse, said in the report: 'The impact of this experience on me as a human being and on my mental health has damaged my life to such an extent, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to quantify it.'
Ofcom said the report was part of a broader programme of work to better understand the lived experience of groups and individuals who have been particularly impacted by online harm.
In March, duties came into force under the Online Safety Act that mean platforms must assess the risk of UK users encountering illegal material and use appropriate measures to protect them from it. Ofcom is currently assessing platforms' compliance with these new duties, and will take action if they fail to comply with them.
Some platforms will also be subject to additional duties under the Act, such as providing adult users with features that enable them to reduce the likelihood of encountering certain types of legal but harmful content.
Participants in this report said they wanted platforms to enforce their terms of service and reduce online hate and abuse for all users, not just for those who choose to use specific tools.
They said existing tools, such as blocking or muting, do not go far enough to help protect them and their families and friends against online hate and abuse.
Kick It Out chair Sanjay Bhandari said: 'The impact of online abuse is undeniable, and the rise in discriminatory social media reports to Kick It Out last season shows it's getting worse.
'Time and again, players and others across the game tell us about the mental toll this abuse takes, and we welcome this new report, which highlights just how deep that impact runs.
'This isn't about a few hateful comments. It's about a culture of abuse that has become normalised. It's about a social media ecosystem that too often enables and amplifies abuse.
'And it's about victims who feel imprisoned by that culture of abuse.'
Jessica Zucker, Ofcom's online safety director, said: 'The UK's new online safety laws mean tech firms now have to start protecting people on their sites and apps from illegal forms of abuse. And when all the rules are fully in force, some of the largest social media platforms will have to give users more control over what they see online.
'People with lived experience of harm online are at the heart of the rules we make and the action we take. We'll be pushing companies hard to make their services safer by design, and holding them to account if they don't.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why Trump Moved Leonard Leo From the Short List to the Sh*t List
Leonard Leo, the bête noire of liberals who curated Trump's first-term judicial appointments, including his three Supreme Court justices, has gone from Trump's short list to his shit list. As is his wont, Trump turned on his loyal servant with particular savagery, calling him a 'sleaze bag' who had rendered bad advice on a series of judicial nominations. Leo responded with comparative good grace, along with a pointed, if diplomatic, defense of his influential work: 'I'm very grateful for President Trump transforming the Federal Courts.… The Federal Judiciary is better than it's ever been in modern history, and that will be President Trump's most important legacy.' The genesis of the fallout speaks volumes about Trump's view of the role of the federal judiciary, and of his own inner circle. Trump's ire was sparked by the recent decision of the Court of International Trade striking down his broad tariffs because they had unlawfully usurped Congress's powers and relied on supposed 'emergency' powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, that the Act does not provide. Both legal failings are cross-cutting themes of Trump's indiscriminate power grabs. Like a number of modern would-be authoritarians, Trump has repeatedly tried to steamroll basic legislative authority by characterizing everyday political issues as emergencies requiring a strongman's intervention. Trump's temper tantrum is ironic, if not absurd. The opinion that set him off was a unanimous per curiam (i.e., no single author was identified) by three members of the Court of International Trade: a Reagan appointee, an Obama appointee, and a Trump appointee. Moreover, the Trump appointee, Timothy Reif, is—as Trump appointees go—unusually well qualified, having previously served as general counsel in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, or USTR, in the executive office of the president and then senior counselor to the USTR. The panel, including Reif, held that the IEEPA—the text of which doesn't even contain the word emergency—could not support Trump's outlandish and all-too-familiar claims that the sky is falling. At the same time, the court noted the possibility of statutory sources of authority other than the one Trump invoked. In response to the administration's predictable motion for emergency relief, the Federal Circuit, the court of appeals for the specialized Court of International Trade, has imposed an administrative stay that tells us nothing about whether it will affirm the lower court on the merits. Trump's pique is all the more off the mark given Leo's record as the administration's judicial nominee whisperer. By any measure—on the left or the right, and whether provoking aversion or elation—Leo has compiled a phenomenally successful record in the service of Trump and the conservative judicial movement in general. He follows in the footsteps of advisers to other Republican administrations since Reagan, which have adopted a single-minded focus on judicial appointees and have dramatically transformed the makeup of the federal judiciary. In Leo's case, that includes Trump's three Supreme Court nominees: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Conservative Trump supporters have generally taken those appointees—which have established an uber-majority conservative court likely to last for a generation or more—as back-to-back-to-back home runs. Just for starters, all three of them voted to overrule Roe v. Wade, probably the number one goal of judicial conservatives for a generation, and a (dubious) achievement that for many years looked impossible. In terms of personal bounty for Trump, all joined the outlandish 2024 immunity opinion that continues to provide him comfort on a regular basis—for example just last week, with Trump's pardon for Paul Walczak, in the wake of a $1 million solicited donation by Walczak's mother, which fits the federal criminal elements of bribery to a T. Leo has joined a very long list of former insiders whom Trump has abruptly cast out and vilified. Central advisers such as Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Anthony Scaramucci, Kayleigh McEnany, Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, and many others have all tasted Trump's poison, some for reasons that are minor or even mysterious. The larger lesson in Trump's excoriation of Leo is what it shows about Trump's expectations of the purpose of screening his nominees. Leo has served up a long series of candidates who talk the talk about conservative jurisprudence, including originalism and more recent articles of faith such as robust Second Amendment interpretation, solicitude for free exercise of rights, and the Supreme Court's less than fully coherent history-and-tradition test (or tests). That doesn't cut it for Trump. One important opinion that goes against him—plainly on the basis of well-established legal principles that any judicial conservative should embrace—and Leo gets moved to the other list, with a heavy dose of Trump's obloquy for good measure. For Trump, there's only one test of judicial qualifications: ruling for Trump, whatever the law provides. Leo failed in his presumed duty to find absolute Trump toadies, or to quietly inculcate the potential toadies he did find. The general agenda of Trump 2.0—outlined by the long blueprint of Project 2025—is to put in place a series of measures that grossly, and unconstitutionally, aggrandize Trump's personal power, rejecting any vestiges of restraint and lawfulness that stymied Trump the first time around. Transposed to the federal judiciary, that means a careful search for judges like Aileen Cannon or Matt Kacsmaryk, who—not to put too fine a point on it—are utterly in the tank for the president who appointed them and who could yet elevate them to higher judicial service. For a few reasons, the Trump 2.0 judicial nomination process has little to show for itself; the Senate has confirmed none of his 11 federal court nominees this year. Leo's casting out thus portends a series of nominees this time around carefully chosen to cross fingers behind their backs when they swear, as the law requires, to 'administer justice without respect to persons.' Call it the attempted Cannonization of the federal judiciary—and, to the extent Trump can secure Senate confirmations for his nominees, one more sharp departure from the rule of law.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
New York's Retail Worker Safety Act Is Live
New York's retail crime compliance countdown has closed as the Retail Worker Safety Act (NYRWSA) has been implemented, and Governor Kathy Hochul's 'landmark legislation' has commenced. The Retail, Wholesale, Department Store Union (RWDSU), for one, is grateful. More from Sourcing Journal Activists Know How to Stop Sexual Violence in the Garment Supply Chain. Will Brands Buy In? Are Amazon's Warehouses Facing an 'Injury Crisis'? SHIPS for America Act Reintroduced to Reinvigorate US Shipbuilding Effective June 4, the NYRWSA (S. 8358B/A. 8947C) will 'introduce critical safety measures to protect retail workers across the state,' according to the semi-autonomous division of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW). 'Retail workers—and shoppers—across New York will be safer because of this law,' Stuart Appelbaum, president of the RWDSU, said. 'Retail workers should not have to go to work every day in fear; this law goes a long way towards ending that.' New York State Senator Jessica Ramos introduced the NYRWSA last January to compel employers to evaluate their workplaces for risks, develop a violence prevention plan, provide ongoing safety training for workers—and revisit these efforts annually. The Harris-endorsing union has worked with Ramos and New York State Assemblymember Karines Reyes, who chairs its subcommittee on workplace safety, throughout the bill's ascension and amendments. While the New York State Senate passed S8358B last summer, Governor Kathy Hochul signed an amendment to the act in February, extending the effective date of some of its provisions to June 2. 'The Retail Worker Safety Act provides for preventative measures that will help deter violence and harassment before it starts,' Appelbaum said. 'And, most importantly, will assist workers in getting help quickly in the event of an emergency.' Retailers with 10 or more employees must develop 'comprehensive violence prevention plans, conduct regular risk assessments and provide biennial training on de-escalation techniques and active shooter scenarios,' the NYRWSA mandates. Retailers with 500 or more employees, meanwhile, must install silent response buttons—allowing 'workers to discreetly alert security personnel during emergencies,' the RWDSU said—before January 1, 2027. 'As a produce manager, I've witnessed firsthand the escalating tensions in retail environments,' said Edwin Quezada, a manager at a stop-and-shop in Long Island and Local 338 RWDSU/UFCW member. 'This Act ensures we have the training and tools to handle volatile situations, making our workplaces safer for both employees and customers. We worked hard to see it brought into law and I'm proud to see it starting to take effect.' The issue has become a source of anxiety for retail employees as retail crime ratchets up, a survey conducted by the RWDSU last spring found. Fifty-seven percent of those surveyed said they've personally experienced verbal harassment or intimidating behavior at work. Eighty percent reported concerns about an active shooter entering their place of business. Seven percent reported that their employers 'made safety improvements following violent incidents,' per the survey. 'Every day I came to work with a pit in my stomach, not knowing if today would be the day someone got aggressive or violent,' said Nancy Almodovar, a salesperson at a major department store in Manhattan, per the RSDSU. 'We've been ignored for too long by our employers, but this law finally says: our safety matters. It gives us real tools and real protection—and for the first time in a long time, I feel like someone's looking out for us.' There's precedent for such programs, the labor union said. The NYRWSA builds on the public sector's workplace violence protection law from 2006 and uses the statutory framework of New York's 2018 workplace sexual harassment protection law, per the RWDSU. 'We are grateful that Governor Hochul has focused on preventing retail violence and theft and for bill sponsors Senator Jessica Ramos and Assemblywoman Karines Reyes,' said Appelbaum.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Maxine Waters campaign to pay $68K for violating campaign finance laws
Progressive California Rep. Maxine Waters' campaign has agreed to pay a $68,000 fine after an investigation found it violated multiple election rules. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) said the longtime House lawmaker's 2020 campaign committee, Citizens for Waters, ran afoul of several campaign finance laws in a tranche of documents released Friday. The FEC accused Citizens for Waters of "failing to accurately report receipts and disbursements in calendar year 2020," "knowingly accepting excessive contributions" and "making prohibited cash disbursements," according to one document that appears to be a legally binding agreement that allows both parties to avoid going to court. Dems Fume Over 'Due Process' For Abrego Garcia Despite Long History Of Party Bucking The Legal Principle Waters' committee agreed to pay the civil fine as well as "send its treasurer to a Commission-sponsored training program for political committees within one year of the effective date of this Agreement." "Respondent shall submit evidence of the required registration and attendance at such event to the Commission," the document said. Read On The Fox News App Citizens for Waters had accepted excessive campaign contributions from seven people totaling $19,000 in 2019 and 2020, the investigation found, despite the maximum legal individual contribution being capped at $2,800. The committee offloaded those excessive donations, albeit in an "untimely" fashion, the document said. Waters' campaign committee also "made four prohibited cash disbursements that were each in excess of $100, totaling $7,000," the FEC said. The campaign committee "contends that it retained legal counsel to provide advice and guidance to the treasurer and implemented procedures to ensure the disbursements comply with the requirements of the Act." Leilani Beaver, who was listed as Citizens for Waters' attorney, sent the FEC a letter last year that maintained the campaign finance violations were "errors" that "were not willful or purposeful." Waters, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, has served in Congress since 1991. The new movements in the probe were first reported by OpenSecrets. Maxine Waters Floats Deporting Melania Trump In Anti-doge Diatribe It is not the first time, however, that Waters has generated public scrutiny. In 2023, a Fox News Digital investigation found that Waters' campaign paid her daughter $192,300 to pay for a "slate mailer" operation between Jan. 2021 and Dec. 2022. It was reportedly just one sum out of thousands that Waters had paid her daughter for campaign work. A complaint that Waters' campaign had accepted illegal campaign contributions in 2018 was overwhelmingly dismissed by the FEC in a 5-1 vote. Fox News Digital reached out to Beavers, Waters' congressional office and Citizens for Waters for article source: Maxine Waters campaign to pay $68K for violating campaign finance laws
