On June 14, 2025, Decentered Media wrote to Ofcom’s Chief Executive, Dame Melanie Dawes, expressing serious concerns about the methodological flaws and lack of impartiality in Ofcom’s report, Experiences of Engaging with the Manosphere, published on June 13, 2025. We requested the report’s withdrawal and a review of its commissioning process, citing its failure to meet the evidential rigour and independence expected of the UK’s communications regulator under the Communications Act 2003.
On July 3, 2025, we received a response from Ofcom, which defends the report but fails to address our core concerns. This blog post summarises Ofcom’s response and explains why it indicates a troubling shortfall in meeting their statutory duty to conduct credible, independent research in the interest of citizens and consumers.
Summary of Ofcom’s Response
Ofcom’s letter, on behalf of Dame Melanie Dawes, defends the Experiences of Engaging with the Manosphere report as a “qualitative contribution” to their online safety duties under the Online Safety Act 2023. The key points of their response are:
- Purpose and Scope: The report, based on interviews with thirty-eight men and one woman, explores first-hand experiences with manosphere content, focusing on potential harms to women and girls. Ofcom acknowledges the self-selecting sample and its limitations, noting that participants with extreme views may have been reluctant to participate.
- Research Standards: Ofcom asserts that their research agencies adhere to the Market Research Society Code of Conduct, ensuring high standards in design, execution, and reporting. They claim the sample included diverse demographic backgrounds and views, and that their broader 2024/25 research program, with over forty projects, supports evidence-based policy.
- Legal Context: In addressing our concern about ignoring active legal proceedings involving figures like Andrew Tate and Russell Brand, Ofcom states it is “not appropriate” to comment on such matters in qualitative research, citing their Register of Risk and Children’s Register of Risk as evidence of harmful content online.
- Public Value: Ofcom maintains that the report is a “helpful contribution” to the evidence base, complementing academic literature, and should remain publicly available for stakeholders and the public to inform discussions on online safety.
Why Ofcom’s Response is Unsustainable
While Ofcom’s response attempts to justify the report’s validity, it fails to address the fundamental issues we raised, revealing a deeper failure to meet their statutory obligations under Sections 14 and 15 of the Communications Act 2003 to conduct and publish credible, independent research in the interest of citizens and consumers. Below, we outline why their explanations are unsustainable and how they fall short of regulatory standards.
Insufficient Methodological Rigour
Ofcom acknowledges the report’s self-selecting sample but dismisses its implications without addressing how this undermines the findings’ reliability. A sample of thirty-nine participants, predominantly male, is inherently limited for drawing insights about a complex online subculture, especially when claiming potential harms to women and girls without directly researching their perspectives. This selective framing, which excludes contrasting ideological voices like Owen Jones or Hasan Piker, as noted in our letter, suggests a predetermined narrative rather than an impartial inquiry. Ofcom’s reliance on the Market Research Society Code of Conduct is insufficient, as this code governs general market research standards, not the specific requirements for regulatory research that must withstand judicial scrutiny for evidence-based governance. The absence of peer-reviewed, independent analysis further weakens the report’s credibility, falling short of the rigorous standards expected under Section 14.
Lack of True Independence
Ofcom’s claim that their research agencies operate to high standards does not address the core issue of independence. As we highlighted, Ofcom’s in-house commissioning and control of the research process creates a potential conflict of interest, particularly given their authority to define and regulate “harmful” content under the Online Safety Act. The letter’s assertion that the research is part of a “comprehensive and multidisciplinary programme” does not mitigate this concern, as Ofcom fails to demonstrate external validation or oversight, such as peer review or independent auditing. This lack of transparency undermines the public’s trust and Ofcom’s duty under Section 15 to publish research that demonstrably serves citizens and consumers, not internal policy objectives.
Evasion of Legal Context
Ofcom’s refusal to engage with the legal context of active proceedings involving prominent manosphere figures is a significant oversight. Our letter emphasised that existing judicial processes already address criminal harms like misogyny, contradicting the report’s implication that such content escapes scrutiny. By dismissing this as “not appropriate” for qualitative research, Ofcom sidesteps a critical factor that could contextualize the report’s claims about harm. This selective omission risks misrepresenting the regulatory landscape, potentially justifying disproportionate interventions that infringe on freedom of expression, a key citizen interest under Section 3 of the Communications Act.
Misalignment with Citizen and Consumer Interests
Ofcom’s assertion that the report is a “helpful contribution” ignores its potential to fuel regulatory overreach. The vague definition of “harm” and lack of a transparent, publicly agreed framework, as we noted in our original critique, risk conflating controversial speech with actionable harm. This approach does not serve consumers, who rely on Ofcom to balance protection with freedom of expression, nor citizens, who expect regulation to be grounded in robust, impartial evidence. By prioritizing a narrative-driven report over open discourse, Ofcom fails to uphold its duty to further citizen interests, as mandated by Section 3.
Inadequate Response to Review Request
Our letter requested the report’s withdrawal and a review of its commissioning process to restore public confidence. Ofcom’s response neither commits to a review nor addresses the commissioning concerns, instead defending the report’s publication. This dismissive stance suggests a reluctance to engage with legitimate criticisms, further eroding trust in Ofcom’s independence and accountability as a regulator.
Comparison with Statutory Duties and Other Regulators
Ofcom’s statutory duties under the Communications Act 2003, particularly Sections 14 and 15, require consumer research to be conducted and published in a manner that informs fair, evidence-based regulation. Unlike other UK regulators, such as the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which emphasises a “contemporary evidence base” through transparent, externally validated research, Ofcom’s reliance on in-house processes and generic market research codes falls short. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) employs thematic reviews with stakeholder input to ensure independence, a practice Ofcom could emulate. Ofcom’s failure to adopt similar safeguards, as evidenced by this response, indicates a gap in meeting the heightened expectations for research independence in 2025, particularly under the expanded scope of the Online Safety Act.
Implications for Public Trust and Regulation
Ofcom’s response reinforces concerns that their research processes risk politicising their role, as highlighted in our earlier blog post, “Framing the Manosphere – Why Ofcom’s Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers” (June 14, 2025). By defending a flawed report without committing to a review, Ofcom undermines public confidence in its impartiality and its ability to regulate complex online spaces like the manosphere. This risks regulatory actions that may disproportionately restrict free speech, failing to address underlying issues like media distrust or the collapse of local journalism, which drive engagement with such subcultures.
Our Call to Action
Decentered Media remains committed to advocating for a decentralised, transparent, and evidence-based regulatory system that supports open discourse and protects freedom of expression. We reiterate our call for Ofcom to:
- Withdraw the Experiences of Engaging with the Manosphere report from public circulation until its methodological flaws are addressed.
- Conduct an independent review of the report’s commissioning process, research standards, and alignment with Ofcom’s statutory duties.
- Engage in broader consultation with stakeholders, including critical voices like Decentered Media, to ensure research reflects diverse perspectives and serves the public interest.
We have shared Ofcom’s response with parliamentary stakeholders, including RH Lisa Nandy MP, Stephanie Peacock MP, Dame Caroline Dinenage MP, and Baroness Keeley, to elevate these concerns. We urge Ofcom to take immediate steps to restore trust and uphold their statutory obligations.
Ofcom’s July 3, 2025, response to our concerns about the Experiences of Engaging with the Manosphere report is unsustainable, failing to address critical issues of methodological rigour, independence, and alignment with citizen and consumer interests. By defending a flawed report without committing to a review, Ofcom falls short of its statutory duty under the Communications Act 2003 to conduct credible research. We call on Ofcom to act decisively to ensure their research processes meet the high standards expected of an independent regulator, fostering a media environment that balances safety with freedom of expression.
For further information, contact Dr. Rob Watson at robwatson@decentered.co.uk or visit https://decentered.co.uk.