In a week dominated by debate over Ofcom’s recent Experiences of Engaging with the Manosphere report, it is worth pausing to ask: are we seeing the full picture? Or is the report itself a narrow projection of institutional anxiety, masking a more complex and vital conversation about trust, masculinity, and public discourse in the digital age?
One compelling counterpoint comes not from the fringes of online culture, but from a high-profile podcast discussion between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris, released on 12 June 2025. In their frank and often critical conversation, Peterson and Harris grapple with many of the issues Ofcom’s report claims to address—distrust in institutions, fragmentation of public discourse, and the polarising effects of algorithmic social media. But instead of reaching for moral panic or regulatory overreach, they explore the possibility of a renewed civic culture based on open dialogue and decentralised trust.
Where Ofcom sees the manosphere as a potential incubator of harm, Peterson and Harris demonstrate that the very same online spaces can, and do, host intellectually rigorous, critical and ethically charged debate. The difference lies not in the content alone, but in the way it is engaged with.
A Conversation Worth Listening To
Peterson and Harris begin by addressing the epistemic disintegration of traditional institutions. They agree that trust in media, universities, and governments has collapsed. But they do not claim this collapse is entirely negative. Instead, they note that the disempowerment of elite gatekeeping has opened up new space for public involvement—space that can be misused, yes, but also reclaimed for democratic purpose.
They are deeply critical of platforms like X (formerly Twitter), which they describe as “toxic,” driven by impulsivity and short-term outrage rather than informed judgement. Harris laments that these platforms optimise for attention at any cost, while Peterson adds that anonymity and algorithmic virality reward the most manipulative or extreme voices. Yet, both also recognise that users can and do shape the environment: the need, as they suggest, is not to burn down the structure, but to rebuild institutional trust in new, decentralised ways.
A central thread in their discussion is that open dialogue can offer a corrective. In a chaotic information environment, what matters most is not eliminating risk, but creating contexts where trust-based engagement and iterative dialogue can function. Public reasoning, when genuinely fostered, can and does act as a self-correcting force. The emergence of thoughtful counterpoints—precisely the kind of thing Harris and Peterson attempt—proves that not all online debate is toxic. Some of it is essential.
A More Constructive Role for Ofcom
If Ofcom truly wishes to address online discourse surrounding masculinity, gender politics, and social values, it would be far more constructive to treat the so-called “manosphere” not as a pathology to be neutralised, but as a generative, if at times difficult, space of civic formation. Rather than framing its subjects as “dupes” at the end of a content pipeline, Ofcom could instead champion the idea that people—especially young men—must be seen as agents who can actively shape, produce, and distribute the media they consume.
The current report, however, does none of this. Instead, it rehearses a familiar narrative of passive risk, filtered through institutional distrust of ‘non-mainstream’ media. It speaks to the fears of those who feel their authority slipping, rather than the potential of a public seeking to reclaim narrative and moral agency.
It should not be ignored that figures like Peterson and Harris—who are both often mischaracterised or misrepresented by their detractors—demonstrate the very nuance and responsibility that Ofcom should be looking to foster. Their discussion makes clear that moral and political disagreement can be sustained and examined without collapse into extremism.
Civic Maturity, Not Panic
Ofcom’s current approach reduces complex, multivalent public discussions to a thin narrative of harm. It fails to distinguish between speech that is truly abusive and speech that is merely unfashionable. It makes little effort to consider structural conditions that have driven people towards online subcultures: the collapse of local journalism, the centralisation of media ownership, the erosion of editorial independence, and the failure of regulators—Ofcom included—to uphold a plural and accountable media ecosystem.
These are not abstract issues. The marginalisation of local and civic media has real consequences for how people engage with one another, how they develop cultural identity, and how they build trust in shared narratives. To ignore this is to ignore the most important context of all.
If we are serious about confronting the challenges of modern communication, then we must also be serious about enabling and encouraging the public to participate in the construction of meaning. That means supporting systems of accountability and participation—not issuing broad-brush condemnations based on methodologically weak, ideologically narrow research.
It also means listening to the discussions that are already happening—like the one between Peterson and Harris—not because we must agree with them, but because they show that the public sphere is alive, capable of self-correction, and worth defending.
Rather than framing the manosphere as a threat to be contained, Ofcom should recognise it as a space in which new forms of civic responsibility are being tested. If it cannot do that, then perhaps it is time to ask: who is really failing in their duty to the public?