Recurring concern

Social media features failing to control amplification of harmful content

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 5 Mar 2024•Latest report 8 Dec 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures or uncertainties in social-media platform features, recommendation mechanisms or public-distribution controls that can increase continued consumption or wider exposure to harmful content, including the anchor's question-following function and algorithmic or public-feature dissemination of dangerous-driving material.

Not included

Excludes harmful content itself where no deficient or uncontrolled platform feature is identified.
Excludes generic social-media content moderation or platform-safety concerns not involving amplification, recommendation, continued consumption or wider dissemination.
Excludes ordinary user-to-user sharing or private content exchange unless the platform feature or algorithm is identified as increasing harmful content's reach.
Excludes platform functionality failures unrelated to the continued consumption or wider dissemination of harmful material.

Reports: 3
Individual concerns: 3
Date range: 2024–2025
Stated actions: 1

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport2

Association of British Insurers1

Brake1

British Aerosol Manufacturers' Association1

Chartered Insurance Institute1

Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade1

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology1

Department for Transport1

Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency1

Financial Conduct Authority1

Ofcom1

Quora1

Snap Group Limited1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

8 Dec2025
Coventry and Warwickshire
Concerns raised1
1. Uncertainty about wider algorithmic dissemination of dangerous-driving content
This report raised 18 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

Harry Joseph Purcell and Matilda (Tilly) Grace Seccombe · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Harry Joseph Purcell and Matilda (Tilly) Grace Seccombe sustained fatal injuries in a single-vehicle collision on 21 April 2023, when a recently qualified 17-year-old driver travelled at excessive speed on a rural road and lost control. The report raised concerns about the combined risks of driver inexperience, peer passengers, vehicle loading and rural-road conditions, as well as issues concerning driver licensing, insurance oversight, unsafe-driving content shared on Snapchat and the lack of coordinated responses to unsafe behaviour.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Uncertainty about wider algorithmic dissemination of dangerous-driving content
Wider context from the report
“7. The inquest heard that unsafe driving behaviour was recorded and shared privately on Snapchat prior to the collision. It received no information on whether Snapchat is able to detect or review content depicting dangerous driving, including where uploaded by minors. It also remains unknown whether any such material was shared via public features, such as Spotlight or Public Stories, or whether algorithmic systems could have disseminated it more widely. ”
Source location
Harry Joseph Purcell and Matilda (Tilly) Grace Seccombe · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 5 · concerns
Open source report
4 Nov2025
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to control toxic social media algorithms
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 1
1. Action
  Work with Ofcom to track the impact of the Online Safety Act and respond to emerging online risks.
  Stated by Department for Science, Innovation and TechnologyStated in progress
Respondent positions 3
1. Position
  Ofcom is responsible for enforcing platforms’ Online Safety Act duties, including where services fail to comply with information notices.
  Stated by Department for Science, Innovation and TechnologyRedirects responsibility
1. Position
  Responsibility for online safety and responding to the incident lies with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
  Stated by Department for Digital, Culture, Media and SportRedirects responsibility
2. Position
  Other departments are best placed to address harmful content accessible across social media platforms.
  Stated by Department for Business, Innovation, Science and TradeRedirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Oliver Luke Gorman · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Oliver Luke Gorman, aged 12, died at home on 5 May 2025 after inhaling butane gas from an aerosol spray. The report raised concerns about the lack of age restrictions on some products containing butane or propane, the adequacy of warnings about inhalation risks, and social media content promoting dangerous challenges.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to control toxic social media algorithms
Wider context from the report
“3. Social media content and access The posting of challenges such as those listed above, and no doubt others, on social media platforms will continue to take the lives of young, impressionable and/or vulnerable children/teenagers unless the platform providers take responsibility fortheir content and/or toxic algorithms either voluntarily or through Government action. The former seems unlikely. Further the age restriction of 13 years for most social media platforms appears to have been determined in relation to data protection laws rather than of the nature of the content to which they will be exposed, again via any toxic algorithms or any searches they may make. ”
Source location
Oliver Luke Gorman · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Work with Ofcom to track the impact of the Online Safety Act and respond to emerging online risks.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The government’s mission is clear: children must grow up safe, protected, and free from online harms. I will work relentlessly across government, alongside other Secretaries of State, to prevent tragedies like this from ever happening again. The Online Safety Act is a critical tool in achieving that goal. The protections outlined above are now fully in force, and we are already seeing real tangible improvements in how children experience the online world. But let me be absolutely clear—this is only the beginning. These protections are a foundation from which we will build on if required. My department is working closely with Ofcom to track the impact of the Act, and their flexible approach means we can respond quickly to new and emerging risks. If further action is needed, I will not hesitate to strengthen child safety measures.”

Source location
Response from Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Page 3 · response
Published 5 November 2025
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Ofcom is responsible for enforcing platforms’ Online Safety Act duties, including where services fail to comply with information notices.

Verbatim wording from the response
“If a platform fails to respond to a Notice, Ofcom can take tough enforcement action - including fines of up to 10% of the companies' qualifying worldwide revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater. I expect Ofcom to use all its enforcement powers to hold platforms accountable where they are failing to meet their duties under the OSA, including in these circumstances.”

Source location
Response from Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Page 3 · response
Published 5 November 2025
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Responsibility for online safety and responding to the incident lies with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

Verbatim wording from the response
“I can confirm that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) leads on online safety. My colleague at the department, Minister ████████, Minister for AI and Online Safety in DSIT, is best placed to respond to you on this tragic incident, and will be writing to you regarding this within the statutory timeframe.”

Source location
Response from Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Page 1 · response
Published 5 November 2025
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Other departments are best placed to address harmful content accessible across social media platforms.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In relation to your matters of concern regarding harmful content accessible across social media platforms, I know you have sent your report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which are best placed to respond to these matters.”

Source location
Response from Product Safety & Standards
Page 3 · response
Published 5 November 2025
Open published response
5 Mar2024
Inner South London
Concerns raised1
1. Question-following functionality encouraging further consumption of the material
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions 3
1. Position
  Ofcom is responsible for overseeing and enforcing the Online Safety Act regime.
  Stated by Department for Digital, Culture, Media and SportRedirects responsibility
1. Position
  Regulated online services, rather than the regulator, must assess and mitigate risks and implement measures protecting users from illegal and harmful suicide content.
  Stated by OfcomRedirects responsibility
2. Position
  Ofcom cannot enforce the online safety duties until its Codes of Practice receive approval and are brought into force through the statutory process.
  Stated by OfcomUnable to act
AI-generated summary

Isabella Shere · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Isabella Shere died at home in Lewisham, London, on 2 February 2023, aged 14. The inquest concluded that her death was suicide, with the medical cause recorded as asphyxia caused by hanging. The concerns included the availability and accessibility of information relating to methods of ending life on Quora, related content and user-engagement features encouraging further consumption, and insufficient monitoring or moderation.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Question-following functionality encouraging further consumption of the material
Wider context from the report
“(5) There is a function to follow questions ████████████████████████ encouraging further consumption of this material. ”
Source location
Isabella Shere · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Ofcom is responsible for overseeing and enforcing the Online Safety Act regime.

Verbatim wording from the response
“I am responding in place of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, given my department’s responsibility for the online safety policy. The Online Safety Act received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023 and will place duties on tech companies to protect their users online, especially children. The Online Safety Act regime will be overseen and enforced by Ofcom, the independent regulator.”

Source location
2024-0298 Response from Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Page 1 · response
Published 6 June 2024
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Regulated online services, rather than the regulator, must assess and mitigate risks and implement measures protecting users from illegal and harmful suicide content.

Verbatim wording from the response
“• Imposes a number of duties on those regulated services, which focus on improving the systems and processes online services operate to ensure the safety of their users, rather than on the presence of individual pieces of content.”

Source location
2024-0298 Response from Ofcom
Page 2 · response
Published 6 June 2024
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Ofcom cannot enforce the online safety duties until its Codes of Practice receive approval and are brought into force through the statutory process.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Although the Act is now law, the duties are not yet in force. The Act requires us to draft Codes of Practice and consult on them before submitting them to the Secretary of State for approval. If approved, the Codes must then be laid before parliament for 40 days. Following approval by Parliament, the Codes will come into force 21 days after they have been issued. We explain our plans to implement the regime (consultation and enforcement timings) for Ofcom’s Illegal Harms Consultation and Protection of Children Consultation below. More information on our approach to implementing the Act can be found in our published Roadmap.”

Source location
2024-0298 Response from Ofcom
Page 3 · response
Published 6 June 2024
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Uncertainty about wider algorithmic dissemination of dangerous-driving content

Concerns raised1

Failure to control toxic social media algorithms

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3

Concerns raised1

Question-following functionality encouraging further consumption of the material

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3

Actions described in response 1

Respondent positions 3

Respondent positions 3