Blog Archives
How Responsible Are Paranormal / debunkers / podcast Content Creators for Their Comment Sections?
In the paranormal podcast and debunking community, online arguments are nothing new. But when comment sections turn toxic, how much responsibility should fall on the person who made the content?
The paranormal community has always had its disagreements. Believers, investigators, sceptics and debunkers often have very different opinions, and that’s perfectly fine. Questioning evidence and challenging claims are part of a healthy discussion. But sometimes those discussions turn nasty, particularly in the comment sections of podcasts, YouTube videos and social media posts.
When this happens, you’ll often hear creators say, “I’m not responsible for what other people comment. Everyone has their own opinions.” And to a certain extent, they’re right. Nobody can control what another person thinks or chooses to write online.
But does that mean content creators have no responsibility at all?
The Tone Starts With the Creator
Something that often gets overlooked is how much the tone of a video or podcast can influence the people watching or listening.
Think about it. If a debunker makes a funny, light-hearted video about a piece of paranormal footage, there’s a good chance the comments will follow that same tone. People will make jokes, have a laugh and perhaps share their own thoughts about the evidence. Now imagine that same footage being discussed in an angry video. The creator is clearly frustrated, speaking aggressively and getting worked up about the people involved. It’s hardly surprising if the comments become more heated too.
Then there’s the content that relies heavily on insults, mocking people and making them look stupid. When a creator spends an entire video putting someone down, should they really be surprised when their audience starts doing the same? Of course, not everyone will react in the same way. Even the friendliest videos can attract horrible comments.
But the tone you set often influences the tone you get back.
And this isn’t just a paranormal community problem. You’ll see exactly the same thing in gaming, sports, politics and just about any other online community.
There’s a Difference Between Criticism and Personal Attacks
Debunking paranormal evidence is not toxic in itself.
There’s nothing wrong with pointing out that a supposed ghost might be dust, an insect or a camera effect. Equally, there’s nothing wrong with a paranormal investigator questioning a debunker’s explanation. That’s how conversations should work.
The problem starts when the focus shifts away from the evidence and onto attacking the person. You can disagree with someone’s footage without calling them stupid. You can question someone’s investigation without insulting their appearance, their intelligence or their character. And this works both ways. Paranormal investigators can be just as guilty of encouraging negativity towards debunkers and sceptics.
Nobody should be above criticism, but criticism doesn’t have to be cruel.
So Who Is Actually Responsible?
Ultimately, the person writing a nasty comment is responsible for what they say. That shouldn’t be forgotten. However, creators also have some responsibility for the community they encourage.
If a podcast host or debunker constantly mocks people, uses insulting language and then laughs along with abusive comments, they’re helping create an environment where that behaviour feels acceptable.
Likewise, if a creator encourages respectful disagreement, doesn’t join in with personal attacks and makes it clear that harassment isn’t welcome, that can influence the audience in a more positive direction. It doesn’t mean creators should have to police every single comment or take the blame for everything their followers do. But there’s a big difference between not being able to control your audience and having absolutely no influence over them.
Can Things Be Better?
The paranormal and debunking communities don’t need to agree on everything. In fact, they probably never will, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
A bit of humour, healthy debate and even the occasional heated disagreement are all part of discussing subjects people feel strongly about. But perhaps creators on both sides could think a little more about the atmosphere they’re creating.
Are they encouraging people to question the evidence, or simply encouraging them to dislike the person presenting it? Are they making jokes about a situation, or turning an individual into the joke? And when their comment sections become hostile, are they genuinely surprised, or does that hostility reflect the tone of their own content?
Final Thoughts
I don’t believe content creators should be held responsible for every comment left on their videos or podcasts. People have their own minds and should be accountable for their own words.
But I also don’t believe creators can completely distance themselves from the communities they build.
If you create content that’s funny and welcoming, you may encourage a funny and welcoming audience. If you create content built around anger and insults, you shouldn’t be surprised when some of that anger and those insults appear in your comments.
It won’t happen every time, but the influence is there. And whether you’re a paranormal investigator, a podcast host, a believer or a debunker, the same principle applies. You can’t control everything your audience says, but you can certainly influence the kind of conversation you start.
the question isn’t whether creators are responsible for every comment. It’s whether they’re willing to take responsibility for the tone they set.
Lee steer claims the Deborah Davies HAUNTED DOLL Collection, that contains annabelle and more.
In the world of paranormal research, taking custody of high-energy spirit vessels is never routine business. But when Lee Steer and the Ghosts of Britain (GOB) team hit the motorway to collect a notorious haul of haunted dolls from celebrity psychic medium Deborah Davies, they expected a standard transport run.
What transpired on the journey home has sent shockwaves through the UK paranormal community and ignited a fresh wave of debates over item-bound attachments and spirit contagion.
The Handover: Passing the Torch
The collection—which includes infamous vessels like “Annabelle”, the viral Edinburgh charity shop doll that captured national headlines on ITV, BBC, and Sky News—had been causing escalating physical and emotional distress. Recovering from health battles, Deborah made the difficult decision to purge her home of the items to protect her own well-being and energy.
Lee Steer and the GOB crew answered the call, agreeing to take full custody of the dolls and transfer them to their secured research facilities in Rotherham.
“Annabelle”: The Edinburgh Charity Shop Doll
Few objects in recent memory have captured the public imagination—and terrified local shoppers—quite like the porcelain doll known as Annabelle. Her journey from a quiet Scottish charity shop window to national television headlines represents one of the fastest viral paranormal cases in UK history.
Timeline of a Viral Haunting
The Window Warning
Early 2024
The vintage 1970s porcelain doll, clad in a blue velvet dress, is donated to St Columba’s Hospice Charity Shop in Morningside, Edinburgh. Volunteers and shop patrons report feeling unnerved by her piercing, lifelike expression.
Going Viral & Price Slashing
February 2024
A photograph of the doll posted in the shop window goes viral on social media after shoppers joke about her sinister appearance. Originally marked at £180, shop staff repeatedly cut the price to £90 to quickly find her a new home.
Celebrity Acquisition
March 2024
Former Real Housewives of Cheshire star and psychic medium Deborah Davies purchases the doll, naming her Annabelle. Davies reports immediate paranormal activity at her home, including unexplained knocks, footsteps, and electronic glitches.
Mainstream Media Frenzy
Spring 2024
Annabelle becomes a national sensation, making headlines on BBC News, Sky News, and featured live on ITV’s This Morning as Davies discusses the vessel’s attached energy.
The GOB Handover
October 2026
Following health battles, Deborah Davies announces she is rehoming her vessel collection. Lee Steer and Ghosts of Britain (GOB) take custody of Annabelle, leading to the infamous, illness-plagued transport journey home.
Vessel Specs:
- Type: Vintage Porcelain / Composition Body
- Origin: St Columba’s Hospice Charity Shop (Morningside, Scotland)
- Reported Phenomena: Nausea upon approach, temperature drops, electrical interference, residual attachment
Taking custody of active vessels rarely goes smoothly, but the journey back to Rotherham proved particularly harrowing for the GOB crew.
Shortly after loading the sealed containers and hitting the motorway, the environment inside the transport vehicle shifted dramatically. Team members reported all of this below.
Within miles, multiple occupants experienced severe, simultaneous physical symptoms:
- Acute Nausea & Dizziness: Unexplained, violent disorientation affected the crew while driving.
- Electrical Failures: Live-stream feeds, mobile devices, struggled to work..
- TEETH started to tingle – john and john both felt strange feelings on their teeth like they started to tingle..
A National Paranormal Landmark
Compared to single-item events—such as Neil Packer’s famous WWII hospital wheelchair featured on ITV’s This Morning—the transfer of Deborah Davies’ full collection to Rotherham stands as one of the most significant UK paranormal stories in recent years.
Now residing within The Haunted Objects Museum Poltergeist House in Rawmarsh, Rotherham, items like Annabelle and Elizabeth undergo continuous baseline monitoring, thermal tracking, and electromagnetic field analysis.
For Lee Steer and the Ghosts of Britain team, housing these entities under one roof remains an ongoing experiment in containment, research, and respect for the unexplained.
Spirit Box Videos on the Recently Deceased Need to Stop
There is something about recent spirit box videos that does not sit right with me, When somebody has only just passed away, especially if their death is all over the news, it feels wrong to see channels rushing to make ITC or spirit box videos about them.
The family may still be grieving, the funeral may not have even happened yet, and strangers are already putting that person’s face in thumbnails and claiming they have made contact with them. That is where paranormal investigation starts to look more like content chasing. Spirit boxes also need to be treated with a lot more caution than they often are.
These devices scan radio frequencies, so if somebody’s name is already being mentioned on the radio, in news reports, interviews or talk shows, then hearing that name come through a spirit box is not automatically paranormal. Of course certain names, places or details might appear, They are already being talked about everywhere.
That is why a name coming through during a session on a recently deceased famous person should never be treated as solid proof that the person is communicating, Editing can also make these sessions look far more convincing than they really are.
A session might last an hour, but the viewer only sees the few moments that seem to match the questions being asked. Add subtitles telling people what they are supposed to hear and suddenly a random bit of radio sounds like a clear response. This does not mean every investigator is deliberately misleading people, but it does mean viewers should be careful.
There is also another side to this that does not get talked about enough, people who disagree with these channels and do commentary can sometimes fall into the same trap without realising.
If a creator makes a video saying that spirit box channels are exploiting a recently deceased person, but then uses a huge photograph of that same person in the thumbnail and puts their name in the title to attract clicks, there is a contradiction there, the intention may be different, but the deceased person is still being used to sell the video in a different way more then likely not fully thinking about it.
these videos does not always need the deceased person’s face plastered across the thumbnail. The focus should be on the behaviour, the method and the ethics of what is happening. a title such as “Why Recent-Death Spirit Box Videos Are a Problem” makes the point without turning the person who died into the main attraction.
Sometimes a screenshot or image may be needed for context, and there is nothing wrong with discussing a case responsibly, but there is a difference between showing something for explanation and using somebody’s death as clickbait. The same rule should apply to everyone.
ITC channels, paranormal investigators, debunkers and commentary channels should all remember that behind the story is a real person and a real family. Whether you believe spirit communication is possible or not, there should still be some respect. i understand its coming from the right place in heart for the debunkers and commetnery channels. If the ITC channel wasnt making the HIDOUS videos in the first place this wouldnt be happening.
If a person has only just died, maybe the most respectful thing is not to rush to contact them, debunk them, react to them or build content around them. Sometimes people should simply be allowed to rest.
abit of a contreversial one but interesting i would love to know your thoughts on this.
When the Search for the Unknown Meets the Search for Clicks: A Respectful Look at the State of Paranormal Investigating FT: Ghosts On Trent
The paranormal community has always been driven by curiosity. Whether it’s exploring allegedly haunted locations, researching local history, testing new equipment, or simply trying to understand experiences that defy explanation, most investigators begin with the same goal: to search for answers.
Over the last decade, however, the paranormal world has changed dramatically. Social media platforms like YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram have introduced the subject to millions of people around the world. That has undoubtedly helped the community grow, but it has also changed the way investigations are presented and, in some cases, the motivations behind them.
A recent post by Ghosts On Trent has sparked discussion across the paranormal community. Their message suggests that genuine investigation is increasingly being overshadowed by entertainment, social media popularity and influencer culture.
It’s a thought-provoking point, but like most things in the paranormal world, the reality isn’t quite as simple as one side being right and the other being wrong.
The Main Concerns
Ghosts On Trent raise several important issues.
They question whether some investigators are becoming influencers before they become researchers. They suggest that popularity on social media can sometimes outweigh experience and credibility, and they express concern that paranormal events may be favouring creators with the largest audiences over those with years of investigative knowledge.
They also argue that chasing views, revenue and online recognition risks damaging the credibility of paranormal investigating. Whether you completely agree or not, these concerns are worthy of discussion.
Social Media Has Changed the Paranormal
There is little doubt that social media has transformed the paranormal community. Years ago, investigations were shared through local groups, forums, DVDs and word of mouth. Today, a single investigation can reach hundreds of thousands of people within hours. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Social media has introduced thousands of people to paranormal investigating who may never have discovered it otherwise. It has allowed small teams to reach global audiences, encouraged collaboration and opened conversations that simply weren’t possible twenty years ago.
However, social media also rewards excitement. Videos with dramatic music, emotional reactions, bold claims and eye-catching thumbnails naturally attract more attention than a quiet investigation where very little happens. Unfortunately, that creates pressure.
A completely honest investigation that ends with “we didn’t capture anything conclusive tonight” rarely performs as well as one claiming to have found undeniable evidence.
When Views Start Driving Investigations
Good investigations take time. Researching a location’s history. Learning about previous reports.
Testing equipment. Ruling out natural explanations before jumping to paranormal conclusions. None of these things make particularly exciting short videos, yet they’re often the most important parts of an investigation.
The danger is that investigators can begin feeling pressure to make every unexplained noise, shadow or equipment anomaly seem paranormal because that’s what audiences have come to expect.
That doesn’t automatically mean they’re being dishonest. Sometimes it’s simply the reality of creating content in an online world where excitement is rewarded.
Clickbait: Part of the Modern Landscape
One word that’s become almost impossible to avoid is clickbait. It’s often used as criticism, but the truth is that almost every successful creator uses eye-catching titles and thumbnails to some degree. That’s not unique to the paranormal community—it’s simply how YouTube and social media work.
Even many of the most respected paranormal channels use intriguing titles designed to make people curious enough to click. Without them, their content may never reach the audience it deserves. The important distinction isn’t whether a title is dramatic.
It’s whether the investigation delivers on that promise. There’s nothing wrong with making people curious enough to watch. Problems begin when evidence is exaggerated, speculation is presented as certainty, or ordinary events are deliberately made to appear paranormal simply for entertainment.
Perhaps that’s where the real conversation should be. Not whether creators use exciting titles—because almost everyone does—but whether the investigation itself remains honest, balanced and transparent.
Everyone Wants Their Work to Be Seen
One point that’s often overlooked is this: if someone uploads their investigations to social media, they clearly want people to watch them. That’s true whether they’re a small local team with a few hundred followers or a channel with hundreds of thousands of subscribers.
People share their work because they want it to be seen. They want discussion. They want feedback.
They want their investigations to reach an audience. In that sense, everyone is chasing views.
The difference is that for many investigators, views are simply the way their work reaches people—they’re not the reason they investigate.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting your hard work to be watched and appreciated. The problem only begins if the pursuit of views becomes more important than honesty, evidence and integrity.
The Convention Debate
Ghosts On Trent also questioned whether paranormal conventions are favouring creators with the biggest online audiences.
There is some truth to the idea that popular creators help sell tickets. Event organisers are businesses, and successful events need visitors to survive. However, that’s only part of the picture.
Many event companies actually invite a mixture of guests. Alongside well-known YouTube personalities, you’ll often find historians, authors, experienced investigators, equipment specialists and researchers who take a far more scientific or evidence-based approach.
That’s because visitors attend these events for different reasons. Some enjoy hearing exciting investigation stories. Others want to learn about historical research, investigation techniques or the science behind certain equipment.
A balanced line-up benefits everyone. It allows attendees to hear different viewpoints, compare methods and decide for themselves what resonates most.
Rather than seeing these different styles as competitors, perhaps they’re simply serving different parts of the same community.
Popularity Doesn’t Equal Credibility
It’s also important not to assume that having a large audience automatically makes someone less credible.
Many successful creators invest enormous amounts of time researching locations, improving their methods and presenting investigations responsibly, Equally, having a small audience doesn’t automatically make someone an expert.
Credibility isn’t measured by subscriber counts, It’s measured by honesty, consistency, transparency and a willingness to question your own conclusions—even when they aren’t exciting.
The Importance of Critical Thinking
Perhaps the biggest danger in paranormal investigating isn’t social media at all, It’s confirmation bias.
When investigators arrive expecting paranormal activity, it’s easy to interpret every sound, shadow or equipment response as evidence, Responsible investigators challenge themselves.
They look for ordinary explanations before extraordinary ones, Ironically, doing so often makes genuinely unexplained experiences even more compelling.
A Community That Needs Every Perspective
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this debate is that every part of the paranormal community depends on the others more than many people realise.
Entertainment-focused channels introduce huge numbers of people to paranormal investigating. For many viewers, these creators are the gateway into the subject. Without that exposure, the paranormal community would almost certainly be much smaller.
At the same time, evidence-based investigators, sceptics and debunkers play an equally important role. They encourage critical thinking, test claims and remind the community that extraordinary claims deserve careful examination.
In many ways, it’s a catch-22, Without exciting investigations attracting large audiences, there would be far fewer claims for researchers and debunkers to analyse. Likewise, without people asking difficult questions and challenging evidence, investigative standards would likely suffer.
Whether people realise it or not, both sides help shape the paranormal community, Neither exists entirely in isolation.
Respect Matters
One thing Ghosts On Trent deserve credit for is that their post focused on wider trends rather than publicly attacking individual creators, Healthy discussion benefits the community, Respectful disagreement encourages better standards.
Personal attacks rarely solve anything, The paranormal world has always been filled with different beliefs, different methods and different opinions. That’s part of what makes it fascinating.
Is Ghosts On Trent Completely Right?
Not entirely, The concerns they raise are genuine, but the situation is more complex than simply blaming social media or content creators, Social media has undoubtedly encouraged some sensationalism.
At the same time, it has also helped grow the paranormal community, introduced new generations to investigating and given independent researchers opportunities that simply didn’t exist twenty years ago.
Like any tool, social media depends entirely on how it’s used, The real issue isn’t technology, It’s integrity.
The Balance
Perhaps the future of paranormal investigating lies somewhere in the middle, Creators should be able to produce entertaining, engaging content without exaggerating evidence.
Researchers should embrace modern platforms without abandoning good investigative methods, Audiences should recognise that not every investigation ends with dramatic proof—and that’s perfectly acceptable.
Paranormal Magazines Ending statement.
Ghosts On Trent have started an important conversation, and that’s something the paranormal community should welcome.
Whether you’re an experienced investigator, a content creator, a sceptic or simply someone fascinated by the unknown, credibility should always remain at the heart of what we do.
At the same time, we should recognise that the paranormal community is made up of many different voices. Some educate through historical research. Some entertain through immersive investigations. Some challenge claims through sceptical analysis. All have contributed, in one way or another, to making the paranormal more accessible than ever before.
Perhaps the goal shouldn’t be deciding which approach is “right,” but encouraging every creator to be honest about what they present. Views will always matter because they allow investigations to reach an audience. Selling tickets will always matter because events need to survive. Entertainment will always matter because it inspires curiosity.
But above all else, integrity should matter most.
If the paranormal community can hold on to that, then there is room for researchers, entertainers, sceptics, historians and investigators alike—each playing their own part in the continuing search for the unknown.
there will be a part 2 more focused on produced fake evidence and the damage,
visit PARANORMAL DEBUNKED to view all our articles like this.
