Copy article

X given 24-hour hate content targets as Ofcom probe continues

ended 18. May 2026

Ofcom reports that X has agreed to three new commitments with the regulator on illegal hate and terror content aimed at UK users, following a series of hate crime incidents and hate-motivated crimes against the UK's Jewish community

  • X must review reported UK illegal hate and terror content through its dedicated UK tool within 24 hours on average, with at least 85% reviewed within 48 hours
  • X must withhold UK access to accounts operated by or on behalf of UK-proscribed terrorist organisations when reported
  • X must submit quarterly performance data to Ofcom over 12 months for monitoring

The commitments come after the attack at Heaton Park Synagogue in Manchester in October 2025, the attack in Golders Green in April 2026, and recent arson attempts on Jewish sites in London. Ofcom confirmed its separate Grok investigation into X remains ongoing.

We'd like your views:

  • X's targets apply only to content reported through its dedicated UK tool. Given the context of escalating real-world attacks on Jewish communities, is reactive reporting sufficient or should proactive detection be a regulatory requirement?
  • Action against proscribed organisation accounts is triggered by user reports, not proactive detection. Should platforms of X's scale be required to identify these accounts independently?
  • Ofcom will monitor quarterly data for 12 months but has not stated what enforcement follows if X misses its targets. What teeth does this arrangement actually have?
  • These commitments were accepted while Ofcom's Grok investigation into X's compliance remains open. Does accepting voluntary pledges from a company under active investigation strengthen or complicate the regulatory position?

1 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Colette Mason
AI Ethics Consultant at Clever Clogs AI
X has agreed to review and montor reported illegal content which sounds like accountability until you look at the mechanism. The targets only apply to content flagged through X's own dedicated UK reporting tool, so X controls the front door, defines the workflow, and marks its own homework. Ofcom gets quarterly numbers but has published no enforcement action if those numbers come back short.

Meanwhile, the Grok investigation into whether X's systems are actually fit for purpose remains open. The regulator is simultaneously accepting good-faith pledges and investigating whether the company deserves that good faith. If this were any other regulated sector, like financial services, aviation, pharmaceuticals, accepting voluntary commitments from a firm under active investigation would raise serious questions about regulatory capture. The Online Safety Act gave Ofcom real powers. The test is whether accepting promises from a big tech player counts as using them.