Violent material flagged to major social platforms remained online in the overwhelming majority of cases, even two weeks after it had been reported, according to a review presented to the Southport Inquiry. The findings form part of the inquiry's second phase, which is examining how violence-fixated individuals are influenced and enabled by the internet, following the murder of three young girls at a dance class in Southport in July 2024.
What the review found
Counsel to the inquiry, Nicholas Moss KC, described the results of an eight-hour search conducted across platforms including X, TikTok, Reddit, Instagram and Discord. The material identified ranged from content with violent overtones that might be considered newsworthy, through to what Moss termed "very violent or strong gore material." Nearly all of it, 98.9%, was publicly accessible, and 92.3% carried no age restriction whatsoever. Once reported, 87.9% of the content was still live a week later. After fourteen days, 83.8% remained available.
Why moderation gaps matter
These figures point to a structural issue rather than a series of isolated oversights. Content moderation at scale relies on a mix of automated detection and human review, and both systems carry trade-offs. Automated tools can miss context, while human review queues are often under-resourced relative to the volume of material uploaded each day. When reporting mechanisms exist but enforcement lags, platforms create exactly the kind of gap the inquiry is scrutinising: material that is technically reportable but practically accessible for extended periods, including to minors, given the near-total absence of age gating identified in the review.
The wider policy context
The inquiry has already heard that Axel Rudakubana, who carried out the Southport attack, had consumed degrading and violent material online that fed his fascination with violence, while also using the internet to source weapons. William Chapman, representing the victims' families, told the hearing that the perpetrator's access to both violent content and online retailers was "unfettered," and argued that action to limit this influence should not wait for further academic study. Representatives from TikTok, Reddit, X and Alphabet are expected to give evidence in November, where they will be asked to account for the apparent delays in removing reported material.
Implications for platforms and regulators
The case adds pressure to an already active regulatory environment around online safety, where platforms face growing expectations to demonstrate not just the existence of reporting tools but their actual effectiveness. For regulators, the gap between policy commitments and real-world removal rates is likely to become a central test of compliance. For platform operators, the findings underline a reputational and operational risk: systems that look adequate on paper may still fail the basic test of timely enforcement once independently reviewed.