Recently, Decentered Media raised a series of concerns about Ofcom’s report Experiences of Engaging with the Manosphere. We questioned its independence, its methodological rigour, and the implications it might carry for the future regulation of online discourse. Ofcom has now formally responded—first to our original letter and then to a subsequent request for the report’s withdrawal. Their reply reasserts their belief that the report is a “helpful contribution” to the evidence base and insists that standard procedures were followed during its commissioning.
Yet these reassurances fail to address the more profound issue: What kind of civic culture is Ofcom helping to foster?
The report, which focuses on a narrow and self-selecting group of interviewees, frames online masculinity primarily as a site of potential harm. It suggests a need for external oversight and implies that regulation may be necessary to mitigate social risk. However, it fails to take into account how online discourse actually works—how conversations evolve, how reputations are built and challenged, and how norms are negotiated in real time.
In stark contrast, a recent conversation between Jordan Peterson and David French offers a far more constructive and grounded view of how so-called “manosphere” dynamics can—and often do—self-correct. In Episode 560 of Peterson’s podcast, the two discuss the cultural stigmatisation of masculinity and the very real confusion and alienation felt by many young men. But rather than inciting outrage or retreating into ideological certainties, their conversation reflects on the need for purpose, mentorship, and responsibility.
They argue that healthy masculinity is not about dominance or grievance, but about ethical structure, intergenerational support, and service to others. This is the kind of discussion that happens within social media networks—not imposed from above, but negotiated through interaction, reflection, and critique. It is a perfect example of how online culture can respond to itself—through dialogue, not decree.
This matters because it challenges the fundamental logic behind Ofcom’s report. If young men engaging with online masculinity content are not all passive victims of radicalisation, but rather complex individuals navigating meaning in uncertain times, then the solution isn’t more oversight—it’s more participation.
The real question, then, is not how we regulate the manosphere, but how we build trust and responsibility in digital discourse. That trust isn’t created by reports handed down by authorities who remain distant from the cultures they study. It is built by those who take responsibility for their own speech and actions, who are accountable to their peers and audiences, and who shape values through ongoing conversation.
For Ofcom to fulfil its mandate as a steward of public discourse, it must do more than assert procedural compliance. It must engage with the structural failures that have hollowed out civic media: the dismantling of local journalism, the consolidation of corporate media power, the erosion of institutional independence. It must reflect on how its own frameworks often reduce complex, multi-dimensional public life into checkboxes of “risk” and “harm.”
In its current form, the report reads less like a tool for understanding and more like a projection of institutional unease. It defines masculinity through its pathologies, rather than its potential. It presumes a regulatory vacuum where in fact a rich culture of self-reflection already exists—one that is visible in the long-form conversations between figures like Peterson and French, where disagreement does not preclude respect, and where solutions are grounded in civic responsibility, not ideological conformity.
If we are serious about building a more equitable and informed public sphere, we must stop treating people—especially young men—as objects of concern and start treating them as agents of culture. That means creating platforms for dialogue, not platforms for control. And it means regulators like Ofcom must reflect on their own role in enabling—not pre-empting—that process.
We continue to call for the withdrawal of the manosphere report—not to shut down discussion, but to make space for a better one. One that starts with trust. One that recognises that online culture is not a threat to be managed, but a civic domain to be cultivated. And one that understands that the future of public discourse will not be saved by extracting people from the debate—but by ensuring they have a real stake in it.