Algorithms amplified World Cup racism, says report
A report by campaign group Hope Not Hate has found that racist abuse directed at England footballers during the 2026 World Cup was amplified on X (formerly Twitter) by algorithms designed to maximise user engagement, since posts provoking outrage tend to generate more interaction and keep users on the platform for longer. The group argues this amounts to X benefiting commercially from hate, as such posts are pushed into recommendation feeds rather than remaining obscure, and it is calling for tougher regulatory action rather than relying solely on after-the-fact measures like blocking and reporting.
Researchers analysed more than 300,000 posts on X during the tournament and identified over 5,500 explicitly racist posts targeting England players, with Jude Bellingham the most targeted overall and Bukayo Saka and Kobbie Mainoo facing the highest proportion of abuse relative to mentions; Djed Spence also received distinct anti-Muslim abuse. Hope Not Hate wants Ofcom to use Online Safety Act powers to force platforms to downrank abusive content and designate major sporting events as "high risk", requiring proactive safety measures. The FA said players have the right to play without facing hateful content online, while Ofcom said it was pushing tech firms to improve safety and had a partnership with police and football bodies to tackle abuse; X has been approached for comment.
- Report says X's algorithm amplified racist abuse of England players
- Over 5,500 racist posts found targeting players in 300,000 analysed
- Hope Not Hate urges Ofcom to force platforms to downrank abuse
New here? Start with this
Racist abuse aimed at England players is a recurring problem online, and campaigners have long argued that social media companies do more than just fail to stop it, they actively help spread it. The row centres on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, and how its recommendation systems decide which posts get shown to users.
The report comes from Hope Not Hate, a campaign group that monitors racism and extremism, and it focuses on abuse directed at England footballers during the 2026 World Cup. Players named as targets include Jude Bellingham, Bukayo Saka, Kobbie Mainoo and Djed Spence, while bodies such as the Football Association and the regulator Ofcom have also responded to the findings.
This matters because it raises questions about how far social media companies should be held responsible for content their own systems promote, not just content they fail to remove. It also touches on the powers Ofcom has under the Online Safety Act, a law meant to make platforms safer, and whether those powers are being used to prevent harm before it spreads rather than just respond after the fact.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates of tougher regulation argue that engagement-driven algorithms are not neutral conduits but active amplifiers, deliberately surfacing content that provokes outrage because it keeps users on the platform longer, meaning racist abuse is effectively rewarded and spread rather than merely tolerated. They contend that footballers cannot opt out of being tagged and targeted, that voluntary self-policing has failed given the commercial incentives pulling the other way, and that clear regulatory duties, such as designating major tournaments as high risk and requiring proactive downranking, are a reasonable and proportionate way to hold platforms accountable for design choices that cause real, measurable harm.
The case against
Those wary of mandated intervention argue that defining and policing what counts as racist or abusive content at scale is genuinely difficult, and that pushing platforms to downrank material under regulatory pressure risks catching legitimate criticism, banter or ambiguous commentary, chilling free expression and handing considerable power over public discourse to regulators and platforms alike. They may also argue that algorithms largely reflect existing patterns of user behaviour rather than manufacturing hatred from nothing, that responsibility should rest primarily with the individuals posting abuse and with law enforcement, and that blanket rules for all major sporting events could prove costly and impractical to apply consistently, particularly given platforms already run some safety measures voluntarily.