Azeem Rafiq among sportspeople highlighting impact of online abuse in new report
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 Ofcom report 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
Powys County Times
2 days ago
- Powys County Times
Dog kills five lambs and attacks sixth near Powys village
Five lambs have been killed in a suspected dog attack on common land near a Powys village. The farm animals were set upon on Llanbister Common sometime between Monday (June 2) and Wednesday (June 4). A sixth lamb is likely to euthanised by a vet due to the severity of its injuries, police have said. Dyfed-Powys Police said its officers are investigating and have shared distressing photos of the lambs on social media. The livestock worrying incident has prompted a strong warning from police to dog owners. Police emphasised that livestock worrying, where a dog attacks or chases livestock causing injury or suffering, is a criminal offence. "This isn't just a threat to a farmer or landowner's livelihood, it's also a dangerous situation for the animals involved, and could lead to more risk if the animals get onto the road," police said. "Always keep your dog under control around other animals and if you see a dog on the loose worrying animals, report it to us. "Additionally, the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act requires all dogs to be on a lead on public access land." Anyone with information about the livestock worrying incident at Llanbister Common is asked to report it to police online, emailing 101@ or by telephoning 101 quoting reference 25000459625
The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- The Herald Scotland
Do we hate our children? Why else would we do them this much damage?
There are changes being wrought on children today that are more like mutations in the human soul. This should scare us, shame us. Indeed, what's happening should render vast swathes of the adult population unfit for parenthood. The World Health Organisation felt compelled to issue recommendations that under-fives spend no more than one hour daily online. Pause and consider that. Read more by Neil Mackay When I see children in pushchairs with iPads in their hands, I feel visceral contempt for the adult in charge. Why don't you just blow cigarette smoke in your baby's face? is the thought that enters my mind. Head teachers in Belfast primary schools have issued a joint statement begging parents to delay giving children smartphones. Ofcom has found that nearly 25% of five-to-seven-year-olds have their own device. Five-year-olds with smartphones. Pause and consider that. What's happening is an act of mutilation. The Scottish criminologist Professor David Wilson told me not that long ago that his new intake of 450 first year students had all watched beheading videos. We're creating monsters. Social media is awash with hardcore pornography that's easily accessed without age verification. Brutality and sadism saturate the online world. You don't need to hear this from me, you know it. You've seen it. Even the most innocent can't help but stumble upon this relentless horror and degradation. How can exposing youngsters – wilfully, knowingly – to hardcore pornography and snuff movies be considered anything other than the murder of childhood? Children are being physically changed, and not simply through their sedentary existence. I listened in bewilderment recently to linguists describing the rise of the "TikTok" accent. Currently, the voices of kids in Britain – a land rich in regional dialects – are merging into a digital blur. You can hear it among the young if you listen. The two main traits are "uptalk" – their intonation rising at the end of a sentence – and what's called "vocal fry", which is a soft, creak in the voice. It's a hand-me-down from American influencers. If children sound more like online influencers than their own parents, something has gone very badly wrong. We wonder about the rise in youth violence, we scratch our head over what could have caused the explosion in mental health problems among the young, we're bemused at the inability of children to socialise, at the loneliness which plagues them, at the self-hatred they exude, at the lack of empathy they display, at the increase in childhood obesity, at their fear, their greed, their anger. "What has damaged them?" we ask. We are the damage. That's the truth. We're allowing this to happen. We wail about "safeguarding" children, yet we buy them a bomb to hold in their hand every waking minute of every single day. The screeching moral majority – the modern-day Mary Whitehouse brigade – lose their minds over sex education policies in schools, but never speak out about the destruction of children mentally, physically and emotionally at the hands of tech companies. It's like singing hymns over your child whilst shooting heroin into their veins. There's a snowball effect now unfolding. GenZ parents in their late twenties have turned on reading. We know that reading is an empathy machine, an intelligence multiplier, a path to social and economic success. Fewer than half of GenZ parents, however, like reading to their children. Screen time has replaced story time. When I die, I know that memories of reading to my children will be among the most cherished images to flash through my mind. The sorrow and pity I feel for these parents is matched only by my contempt. Those GenZ mums and dads feel reading to their children just isn't 'fun'. What can you say to that? A third deem reading a 'subject to learn' rather than enjoy. Among their own children, only a third read frequently for pleasure. In 2012, the figure was more than 50%. GenZ was broken and mutilated through exposure to screens – thanks to their own parents, that's us, incidentally – and now they're handing on the damage. Remember Philip Larkin's famous line: "They f*** you up, your mum and dad." Professor David Wilson said recently that his new intake of 450 first year students had all watched beheading videos (Image: Tern TV/BBC Scotland) The online world is a place where kids go to learn how to kill themselves, or kill someone else. Yet what do we do? Elect politicians who suck their thumb for fear of inciting the ire of tech billionaires. A few nations show guts. Australia is to ban social media for under-16s. The hard truth, though, is that unless we adults take responsibility for our own actions, our children will never be saved. Why should your child care what you say about social media when you're glued to your phone or howling on Twitter? Did you care what your parents said about smoking when they had a fag in their mouth? The thought of confronting technology is daunting. It makes you feel tiny, it brings on a case of Cnutism: that trying to stop what's unfolding is as fruitless as a mad Danish king daring to hold back the sea. But unlike the sea, technology is human-made. It's not our god. Yet. What's the point of rescuing the economy, fighting for democracy, or saving the planet, if we fail to rescue our own children, fight for their future and save them from what's being done to them on our watch as adults? Surely even raw self-interest should make us act. Ask yourself what the adults of the future may be like when you're old, needing care. Are today's children – innocents being shorn of empathy and understanding through our carelessness and folly, rendered desocialised, self-centred and morality-free; more influencer than citizen – really the people you want in charge of you? Neil Mackay is The Herald's Writer at Large. He's a multi-award-winning investigative journalist, author of both fiction and non-fiction, and a filmmaker and broadcaster. He specialises in intelligence, security, crime, social affairs, cultural commentary, and foreign and domestic politics.
Scotsman
2 days ago
- Scotsman
Charity begins with honesty among staff
Debbie McIlwraith Cameron on strengthening public trust in charities Sign up to our Scotsman Money newsletter, covering all you need to know to help manage your money. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It is a criminal offence to act, or continue to act, as a charity trustee if you are disqualified under the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 and you may be liable on conviction to imprisonment, a fine or both. With such consequences, charities must have a working knowledge of the disqualification criteria. Existing criteria: You cannot be appointed, or continue to act, as a charity trustee if: (i) you have an unspent conviction for an offence involving dishonesty or under the 2005 Act; (ii) you are bankrupt/sequestrated; (iii) you have granted a Protected Trust Deed/entered into an Individual Voluntary Arrangement; (iv) you have been removed by a court from being a charity trustee, or (v) you have been disqualified from being a company director. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Disqualification is determined before appointment, and if a trustee's personal circumstances change, they are under a duty to disclose this, as their appointment must automatically cease. Charities must employ due diligence when it comes to employee backgrounds, says Debbie McIlwraith Cameron While you may have to rely on information provided in good faith, there are publicly available methods to carry out due diligence, e.g. OSCR's searchable Record of Removed Persons on its website. Exemptions: An individual may apply for a waiver from OSCR for a specific charity, a type of charity or charities in general. Each case is considered and decided on its own merits. OSCR lists the variables and supporting evidence it will consider in its guidance. Some disqualification criteria are time-sensitive. Automatic disqualification because of a conviction, bankruptcy and a Protected Trust Deed only exists while they remain unspent and undischarged. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The changes: The implementation of the Charities (Regulation and Administration) (Scotland) Act 2023 extends disqualification criteria in two ways. The automatic disqualification list will now include being convicted of the following offences: terrorism, money laundering, bribery, perverting the course of justice, wilful neglect of duty by a public official/misconduct in public office and sexual offences. The key change is that the criteria will now extend to employees/volunteers holding a role with 'senior management functions' within the charity, as well as charity trustees. The 2023 Act defines 'senior management function': (i) if the function relates to the management of the charity and the individual is not accountable to anyone higher within the charity, except the charity trustees (e.g. the Chief Executive role), or (ii) if the function relates to the control of money, and the only person the individual is accountable to (except the charity trustees) is someone else exercising a senior management function other than to do with the control of money (e.g. Finance Director). In guidance published by OSCR, the regulator is clear that an individual's role/job title is not the deciding factor; you must consider the function the individual undertakes. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Practical implications: Before the extensions are implemented later this summer, charities should undertake due diligence to ascertain whether any of the current trustees would come under the extended criteria and update any appointment/induction policies, and consider if any of their employees/volunteers carry out 'senior management functions' and if they must cease to act. Trustees may wish to add the potential consequences of automatic disqualification (e.g. loss of the Chief Executive/Finance Director, trustee numbers being below the minimum) and mitigation methods (e.g. due diligence, ability to re-deploy within the organisation) to the charity's risk register. If an automatic disqualification event were to occur, depending on the circumstances, it would be advisable to seek HR/employment advice.
