As someone who was glued to Twitter/X for years, leaving on 1 May for an extended self-imposed exile felt a little bittersweet. Certain corners of the app. are of course toxic and full of biased discourse and hate speech, but I had managed to carve out a pleasant space. I met a handful of like-minds and enjoyed talking philosophy and exchanging book recommendations, all of which generally speaking, added positive value to my life. Although I have not been active there for 105 days, I caught wind of this article from Sky News yesterday which cited that Bluesky (X’s best alternative) saw a 60% jump in users from the U.K. following Elon Musk’s comments and misinformation regarding recent anti-migration riots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
When the public were left to fill in the blanks about the identity and intent of a young man who stabbed and killed three girls at a dance class in Southport, racist, anti-migration sentiment took hold online and sparked real-world violence. Do not let anyone try to tell you that misinformation is not a real concern. It is in urgent need of quelling by way of creative solutions and actionable policy.
There is no disputing the fact that Musk’s commentary (including posting that “civil war is inevitable” and that “Britain is turning into the Soviet Union”) and the lack of oversight regarding hate speech on X added provocation.
On top of this, Musk’s awkard “love in” (as The Rest is Politics put it) with Donald Trump on Monday evening created an even stranger energy around the platform.
I’ve steered away from commenting on politics publicly but have not stopped paying attention. Recent events like this and a seismic shift in the 2024 American presidential race remind me of how important it is to promote keeping a balanced, pragmatic perspective about geopolitics while also calling out what it most problematic. Injecting some of that into the aether seems like a way to do the little bit of good that I’m capable of.
The usefulness of social sites
To juxtapose the current state of things with the role Twitter (and Facebook as well…) played in the Arab Spring is interesting. Under oppressive regimes in the region, social media was critical in news dissemination and organising when the internet was widely censored. Without access to uncompromised platforms, much would have gone unreported.
Overall, the number of users jumped by 30 per cent to 27.7m, compared with 18 per cent growth during the same period in 2010. In the past year, the number of users has nearly doubled from 14.8m.
During the protests in Egypt and Tunisia, the vast majority of 200-plus people surveyed over three weeks in March said they were getting their information from social media sites (88 per cent in Egypt and 94 per cent in Tunisia)
-UAE based news site, “The National” (05 June 2011)
Never will I forget the crowds in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, Beirut, Damascus etc., and the incessant, exhuberant chant: “Ash-shab yurid isqat an-nizam!” (literally, the people want to bring down the regime) which began in Tunisia after the self-immolation of a fruit vendor, but spread quickly to all corners wherever citizens demanded change.
Many of us can recall the energy. I was studying Arabic at the time and both the excitement and unease was palpable amongst my classmates and professors, most of whom still had close ties and/or family in the Middle East: my two professors were from Syria (Dimashq) and Lebanon (Beirut). The woman I sat next to was preparing for Hajj in her native Saudi, and another man in my class had immigrated from Egypt only a few years prior to attend university in the U.S. On more than one occassion, they noted the exceptional important of social media in the movement. Despite the outcome of the Arab Spring, it remains an example of how communication via social media can be a positive in certain geopolitical climates.
Inherently, so much good can come from a place like X. However, when the algorithm is tuned to display information they think you want to see over those you chose to follow, things begin to unravel very quickly - and not just UX. As with any social site, inflammatory language is rewarded with engagement, and the best performing content becomes the most widely circulated. This, coupled with a lack of oversight and without a robust enforcement policy to dissuade violent rhetoric creates a toxic environment. This is when it becomes a danger to society.
Social media can be such a force for good. It can be such a great organising tool, but when it is being very blatantly used to organise violence, we shouldn’t be picking up the pieces in the aftermath….those companies are massive. They are multibillion dollar companies, global companies. They know how to do this and they need to step up.
-British Labour Party politician and former Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner, Kim McGuinness on Times Radio (11 August)
Legislation and regulation
In 2023, the European Union rolled out its Digital Services Act which aims to protect the basic rights of EU citizens as well as creating new ways for users to flag innapropriate content. While this is a positive move forward, it does not apply to users in the U.K., nor the U.S., which is lagging behind in a serious way when it comes to tech and data privacy laws.
I tend to be in the camp that over-legislation or regulation is not the answer. There is a fine line to be traversed however, and I agree with Welsh Labour politician Leighton Andrews that Musk and X should not be let off the hook.
In a Substack post from 13 August, Andrews explains the UK’s Online Safety Act (UK OSA) but highlights that portions of it “have yet to be commenced” (made enforceable):
Platforms are required to try to prevent illegal content, and to remove it if it appears, including that which:
involves racially or religiously aggravated public order offences
is inciting violence
-Leighton Andrews, Ukania (13 August 2024)
In short, the act requires all companies take action against illegal content and activity, reduce the risk of illegal offences on the platform, and implement a means of removing illegal content. It also lists “priority offences” which if violated must be addressed by the company via “proactive measures”.
Based upon this language, Musk and many others on X have already violated these terms on numerous occasions.
The Act gives Ofcom (the Office of Communication) the powers they need to take appropriate action against all companies in scope, no matter where they are based, where services have relevant links with the UK. This means services with a significant number of UK users or where UK users are a target market, as well as other services which have in-scope content that presents a risk of significant harm to people in the UK.
Regardless of a company’s location, the UK OSA leaves ample room for enforcement, which is a key factor in a globalised world. Of course, as Andrews also points out, litigation will undoubtedly ensue as it always does when it comes to heightened regulation.
Nonetheless, the UK OSA is a solid framework and the time is now to begin more serious conversations about holding those who own and operate social platforms to account for their policies and actions (or lack thereof). Recent events are not the only ones which highlight the fact that what is said online can and will spillover into real world violence and create dire security concerns. Elon Musk should not be immune to the consequences.
A 2023 report from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) noted that hate speech on the platform had increased since Musk tookover on 27 October 2022. ISD’s Director of Communications, Tim Squirrell, had this to say on Sky News about the riots earlier this week:
It’s very clear to us [ISD] that what is happening here is an attempt to hijack a really difficult, sensitive issue as a mechanism to push hate.
When globally recognisable and influential personalities like Elon Musk call for things like violence or civil war, or even predict them, there are people who will run with it and see it as justification. People seek belonging and for a place to vent their political views. Online communities provide that, even to individuals with the belief that violence is a proper means to the end they desire.
It is right to protect free speech as much as possible, but a line must be drawn. Social platforms must feel the consequences. Events like the attack on the U.S. Capitol in 2021 and last November’s anti-migration riots in Dublin (which have striking similarities to those in the U.K.) are just a couple of instances where hate speech and misinformation have originated online and resulted in violence and tragically, death in the real world. I hate to think that it will take further unrest to result in meaningful, and actionable changes in policy, but thus far, there is not enough being done proactively to make me more optimistic.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F52bd329a-811f-4a8e-94d0-6a3462faa0f9_1536x1024.webp)
What comes neXt?
As Kim McGuinness said in the interview I highlighted earlier, “…we shouldn’t be picking up the pieces in the aftermath.” It is high time for those with the power to craft and enforce substantive anti-hate speech policies which create worthwhile changes within our social media environments and help pre-empt violent discourse. To allow for even one more circumstance of mis- or disinformation to spiral into real-world violence is one too many.
From my vantage point, this includes a few things:
Allowing for better in-app. fact checking. In 2020, in an attempt to slow the spread of mis/disinformation around the pandemic, Twitter would prompt a user to “read before you retweet”. Of course, it has since been abandoned but even simple changes can increase media literacy and thoughtfulness.
Firmer consequences for engaging in hate speech and violent rhetoric. This involves stipulating in no uncertain terms what defines such language and then following-through in a clear and consistent way by suspending or banning users who violate this policy. Thus far, I don’t know of a very good example of this, but we all know it can be done. Even when Jack Dorsey tried to improve this at Twitter in 2017, a lot of grey area remained and a significant amount of dispute arose.
Enact “algorithmic surveillance”, as Leighton Andrews suggests. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties has already tried to take steps in this direction. With this, a user could opt-in (not just opt-out) of seeing certain types of hate speech. It goes beyond muting certain words or blocking certain users by starting from the point of no-exposure.
Enact a rule which requires users to upload valid government ID before they can register for an account. This also solves the problem of underage users; and while it is not a perfect fix, creating bot accounts would be more difficult and the true identity of someone engaging in hate speech would be verifiable and thus, they could be barred from the platform and law enforcement could take appropriate and targeted action.
Restrict Musk’s access to classified information. It is important to remember in all of this that Elon Musk has an active security clearance. It was questioned in January after allegations of drug use (since drug use of any kind is a violation when holding such a clearance). As he is not only the owner of X, but also the founder and CEO of SpaceX (of which Starlink is a subsidiary), he has reason to hold this clearance for business research purposes and putting this at risk might possibly move him to make changes at X.
Focus on data protection. This would counter the problem from a different, less-direct angle by encouraging governments to punish a social media platform who violate specific terms of data privacy policy. Twitter was already forced to pay a $150 million Civil Penalty in 2022 after a joint investigation by the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission for failing to protect users’ data privacy. By way of consistent and broad sanctions, one would hope perhaps these companies may fall into line across the board. At present, the UK Information Commission is investigating whether or not X is being forthright about using user data to train its AI model which could lead to further developments in this arena.
A personal decision
Lastly, the most immediate and meaningful thing is for the individual user to decide whether or not they want to be a part of such a platform. We all have the power to delete our accounts and go elsewhere. Bluesky, which is decentralised and the brain-child of Twitter creator Jack Dorsey, is one example and it is growing substantially with each misstep Musk and X make. I would not judge anyone who wants to stay either. The truth is, it is still a much better place to gather information in real time and make a wider range of connections for now. New alternatives will become more robust in due time and in the meanwhile, I think it is a good idea to ask yourself which side of history you prefer to be on.
Should all the “good ones” leave, there is a fear it will be left to the most hostile and vitriolic minds, but I still believe that would strip away much of the sway and trust that X holds in the social discourse. We can separate the man from the product but as I think more honestly about where I stand on this matter, it is clear that my ethics and worldview do not align with the way X is being operated.
I earnestly hope that big changes come as soon as possible, because whether or not anyone chooses to be on any such platform, millions of others are. They will continue to be a part of our social fabric and must be made better, more honest, and held accountable.