Sunday, 20 September 2026
More than three-quarters of UK adult internet users say they encountered material they regarded as hateful during the previous year, according to new Ofcom research examining how people experience potentially harmful and distressing content online. The findings arrive as Britain’s communications regulator develops additional requirements for the largest digital platforms under the Online Safety Act.
Ofcom commissioned YouGov to survey 4,443 UK adults in February 2026, with the sample designed to be nationally representative. Among adult internet users, 77% said they had encountered content they considered hateful during the preceding 12 months, while 58% reported seeing such material at least weekly. The research measured respondents’ perceptions rather than determining whether individual examples met the legal definition of illegal hate speech.
Reported exposure was particularly high among some groups. Around 90% of LGBTQ+ respondents and 85% of people from minority ethnic backgrounds said they had encountered material they regarded as hateful. The rate was also 90% among internet users aged 18 to 24. Women and men reported broadly similar overall exposure, although women were more likely to report encountering sexist material.
Much of the content was encountered without users actively looking for it. More than three-quarters of those who had experienced perceived online hate said they came across it while scrolling, while more than half encountered it through comments or replies. The findings place greater attention on personalised feeds, recommendations and other systems that influence what users see rather than focusing solely on material people deliberately search for.
Separate Ofcom research examined adults’ experiences with online material promoting suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. Unlike the larger YouGov survey, this was qualitative research involving 30 adults with direct experience of such material and five professionals working with affected people. Participants described cases in which content they had previously searched for continued to appear through recommendations or automated playback after they no longer wanted to see it. Because of the study’s design and size, these experiences cannot be treated as estimates of how frequently the same patterns occur across the wider UK population.
The research also identified a more complicated attitude towards filtering than simply wanting potentially upsetting material removed. Participants generally supported tools allowing them to block or mute accounts and indicate that they wanted to see less of particular subjects. Some, however, were reluctant to remove categories of content completely because they wanted to remain informed about issues affecting their communities, support other users or continue encountering different perspectives.
Content warnings were another area where participants expressed preferences for greater individual control. Warnings requiring users to make an active decision before opening potentially disturbing material were generally regarded as more useful than notices that disappeared automatically. The findings suggest that some users favour systems that provide information and choice before viewing content rather than automatically preventing access to it.
The research has a direct connection with Britain’s developing online-safety regime. Ofcom says the findings are contributing to its evidence base as it considers additional requirements for Category 1 services, which include some of the country’s largest social-media, video and messaging platforms. The regulator is currently consulting on measures covering user controls, identity verification, complaints, terms of service, privacy and freedom of expression, with the consultation scheduled to close on 2 October.
The regulatory work is progressing while Ofcom faces legal challenges from several technology companies over aspects of the Online Safety Act’s implementation. Meta is contesting the Category 1 classification of Instagram and WhatsApp, while other disputes concern regulatory fees and Ofcom’s information-gathering powers. There is no evidence that the latest research was commissioned specifically in response to those cases, but its findings form part of the evidence being developed as Ofcom determines how the legislation should operate in practice.
The findings ultimately point towards a regulatory challenge that extends beyond deciding which material should remain online. Users reported wanting greater influence over what recommendation systems and feeds place in front of them while retaining the ability to access material they choose to see. As Britain moves into the next phase of implementing its online-safety regime, the balance between protection, individual choice and platform responsibility is likely to remain one of the central issues facing regulators and technology companies.
