Main Edition
US
FR
August 8, 2024 - 10:00am
Apparently, it’s Elon Musk’s fault. The rioting, that is. Jessica Simor KC wants Parliament to “pass a short Bill closing Twitter down in the UK”. Peter Jukes, the co-founder of Byline Media, compares X under Musk’s management to “Paris under Nazi occupation”. Edward Luce, associate editor of the Financial Times, argues that “Musk’s menace to democracy is intolerable”.
The British public is pointing the finger too. According to YouGov, 92% of Labour voters, 94% of Lib Dem voters, 89% of Conservative voters and 78% of Reform voters believe that social media is at least partly responsible for the riots.
The case against social media — including Twitter — is based on the fact that false reports had circulated online before the first riots. The truth is that the alleged perpetrator of the Southport stabbings is the son of Rwandan immigrants and not, as baselessly claimed, a Muslim who’d arrived illegally on a boat.
Obvious misinformation then, but is it really responsible for the rioting? That would presuppose that the rioters — be they far-Right provocateurs or local yobs — care a great deal about the distinction between one kind of migrant and another. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that misinformation of this kind can cause riots. The next question, then, is whether banning Twitter would stop false rumours from spreading.
The answer, of course, is no. Even if there wasn’t a way of getting round a national ban on a global website (and there is), the misinformation would still circulate on other social networks. So what we’re really talking about here is a complete ban on social media.
We’d need to look at other forms of electronic communication too. In the wake of the 2011 riots, there was a major flap about the role played by the BlackBerry Messenger app (BBM) — an example of techno-scapegoating that looks rather silly in retrospect.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeBy now it’s a pretty safe bet that the police know what motivated the Rwandan child killer, but they haven’t told us. What does that tell you?
Where is he being held?
Is he being held in a secure psychiatric unit? If he has ‘mental health’ problems, why not?
Probably out on bail.
Oh for goodness sake this is pathetic. The rule of law means they’ll present the evidence in Court in due course. You’d sooner stuff were released now, half cocked, and give the opportunity for a claim of unfair trial. One suspects the assessment of motive not straightforward. If the perpetrator had indicated much on social media we would probably have some insight into that already as Journalists would have found it.
By the way, he was British, not Rwandan. His parents were Rwandan. Colour of skin does not determine nationality lest we forget. Appreciate probably an innocent mistake but
Nobody, except you, is talking about skin colour. He is a British citizen of Ruandan ethnicity. It is his Ruandan ethnicity that confers a high propensity of violence, impulsiveness, underdeveloped intellect, mental illness upon him, in predictable accordance with collective subsaharan characteristics and behavioural patterns = ‘culture’.
Which should have been glaringly obvious to all those bureaucrats who granted his parents British citizenship.
I think you know perfectly well that if there was the slightest chance of his being on the ‘far right’ we’d all know all about it by now.
Any intelligent, reasonable person would understand this, but it seems too many on here don’t seem capable enough.
If somebody disagrees with your views it does not render them unintelligent or unreasonable.
We take 15 months to ascertain his motives?
Depends what you mean by British. I enjoyed a comment recently that suggested that “just because Jesus was born in a stable, that doesn’t make him a horse”.
He is not ethnically British. Just as a white boy born to white British parents who had emigrated to Rwanda would be a Rwandan national, but not a ‘Rwandan’ ethnically. Of course colour of skin does not determine nationality; but it is a significant characteristic ethnicity inter alia.
Smells like yet another cover up doesn’t it.
Cover up? I’m fairly sure we’ll all find out at the trial. Maybe you’d like to skip the trial and decide the verdict and sentencing using Twitter instead?
His guilt is all but certain. The only issues are motive.
It tells me that they are waiting for the trial to begin.
Presumably not expedited like that of the “far right” rioters as there is no need to send a signal to potential child killers or to clear up any baseless speculation on the part of the public.
There is definitely something we are not being told.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRXcpu1dIrg
Why does Serena Kennedy say she is “continuing to work with counter terrorism police”?
Not spreading anything that would prejudice the trial, just asking why a chief constable made the statement she made (about 1 min 45 secs in)
Every tyrant says free speech is a danger to society. That’s how we lose our freedom. They never say free speech is dangerous to my rule.
Yes and ironically enshrined in the ECHR here in Uk/Europe – see Article 10. The same ECHR some numpties on the Right want us to step away from. You couldn’t make it up sometimes.
British people benefited from freedom of speech long before the ECHR was ever thought of. To the extent freedom of speech is threatened now, the ECHR won’t do a thing to save it – quite the opposite.
Quite.
We had all the freedoms we needed before universal human rights were invented. And precisely because those rights and freedoms had been hard earned. Which is why they are not actually universal.
Some people seem to think the period before the ECHR and EU was some sort of dark ages. Just as many imagine there was no health service before the NHS.
And the USA seems to get by just fine with the First Amendment. I just wish we had that here.
We have “hate laws” that rely on supposition and conjecture, where people are told to “check their thinking” and recorded as non hate crime incidents.
You couldn’t make it up.
John Gray writing in The New Statesman this April.
“Suspending freedom of expression for the sake of liberal values may seem a paradox, but it is not illogical. For latter-day hyper-liberals, free speech is useful only so long as it advances a progressive project. Confronted by criticism, they respond by trying to suppress debate. An ever-widening category of “hate speech” is deployed against any discourse deemed offensive or a risk to public safety”.
Rights are not something to be “enshrined” by a govt agency or bureaucracy. They are something that exist because you exist, and it is the role of govt to protect them.
Rights aren’t rights if the government can just take them away on a whim.
Indeed, this has nothing to do with truth or lies (both of which are highly subjective), but everything to do with controlling the narrative. Back in the good old days that was done by cutting people’s tongues out and forcing them to confess to their heresy with red hot pokers. Now they need to employ more subtle measures of mind control – like organising a load of counter protests to pretend that they reflect real views of the British people. Shame a Labour counsellor decided to gob off about cutting people he did not agree with’s throats, before chanting free Palestine!
https://www.gbnews.com/news/riots-labour-councillor-suspended-cut-throats
2 tier Kier will definitely need to find an excuse to shut down fascist news sites like GB News too.
VPN
VPN indeed, Cloudflare (which is free) or NordVPN etc. bypass any local restriction It’s impossible to shutdown a social media platform.
Not sure impossible to block it though. CCP and FBS manage it. Anyway I’m not suggesting the right approach. Just hold the Owners to the same standards we would other media if their platforms allowed unlawful actions or content to be spread.
Not necessary. Just make it unlawful to be anonymous. That would put a stop to most of it, apart from the likes of Nick Lowles, Alastair Campbell, James O’Brien etc.
Not such a bad idea HB. Checking the person is ‘real’ has some complexity of course but maybe an addition to the On Line safety Bill that may follow.
Would like to agree. But of course, there are multiple Hugh Bryants and j watsons out there, so we aren’t in the clear ourselves yet. And we sometimes see two contributors sharing the same name handle here. Short of adding additional information (date of birth ? address ?), being sure each of us is unique and traceable isn’t trivial. but it may be enough that the site (UnHerd in this case) can trace us on demand if required.
Is that true ? How do they (Russia and China) actually block/prevent VPNs ? I didn’t think that was possible. You can declare their usage illegal. But how do you actually stop people using them ?
But do tend to agree with the argument that these platforms are actually publishers and have some responsibilities as such. The difficulty being quantifying exactly what those responsibilities are and how these can be enforced in practice. And at the risk of applying the same argument to UnHerd and demanding they censor our comments even more … must stop digging …
Is that true ? How do they (Russia and China) actually block/prevent VPNs ? I didn’t think that was possible. You can declare their usage illegal. But how do you actually stop people using them ?
Even if you block vpns it can still be accessed uding TOR
Were you just trying to echo my comment or actually add something new/useful ?
Just saw your reply below which clarifies,. Thanks.
Even there it’s accessible using TOR
Those calling for twitter or X to be shut down because of false information are the same voices that wailed when it was taken over by Musk. The same voices that were also then strangely silent when the full revelations came out as to how extensive the State interference and censorship by the FBI and others had been on the twitter platform prior to its takeover. The suppression of covid origin stories, the suspension of accounts (New York Post) to kill the Hunter Biden laptop story, and on and on.
One man’s misinformation is another man’s ideology, as any good trans-activist knows (there’s a pun in there somewhere), so who gets to decide which is which? That is the key question, and being prepared to put ones trust in this matter in the hands of the State would be foolish indeed. Pravda anyone? I’d rather not.
If fast travelling ‘misinformation” means that the State has to be faster on being open and transparent with the facts (which is the best way to lance the boil of lies) then so much the better.
The reason Twitter is targeted by these fake liberals is simply because it is now owned by Musk who is vocally in favour of free speech and has been critical of Starmer.
Pravda has been re-branded BBC News.
If the police and government put out true and reliable information in a timely manner then [much of] the vacuum for misinformation to occupy wouldn’t exist.
Similarly, it’s hardly the fault of social media that people have stopped believing the government and legacy media.
I’ve said this many times, but this is all rather like blaming the opposition team’s manager rather than your own when your side loses at football.
I’m not writing this in defence or approval of social media (much of which is awful). Simply to point out the deflection going on here.
Remember the universal truism – ‘mythology is twice round the World before the truth has got it’s shoes on’.
This is because getting to the truth sometimes takes time and proper consideration. Thus whilst occasionally your contention Govt could do it quickly holds, the fact is mythology will always outpace also holds. Thus which do you act on?
Something you repeatedly ignore, is projection “truth”?
Have you considered taking your own advice in this regard. Don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone so willing to impute bad intent on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence.
Thou doth protest too much HB.
There are also times when the truth is self-evident but the people in charge do their best to suppress or ignore it. Will you need examples of that or can you think of a few on your own?
Be handy AL to have one from you so I can consider and maybe respond?
I’ll give you two, perhaps three if you take the first in two parts: For four years, we in the States were told that Joe Biden is perfectly lucid and completely in charge. We were told to ignore our lying eyes, until that lie was no longer useful. Now we’re told that a woman hired for identity reasons, a person that Dem voters thoroughly rejected in 2020, is up to the task.
There is the Covid caper, starting with straight-faced claims that getting the jab meant no risk of contracting or transmitting the virus, neither of which was true.
So the question was – ‘truth is self evident’. Now on Biden I would grant you recent months certainly showed him struggling v much in certain scenarios. What we don’t know is how much that translated behind the scenes to poor decision making and how far back. Physical frailty shouldn’t be the test. Roosevelt was v frail esp last couple of years. So I would contend you express an opinion rather than an irrefutable truth. As regards the VP and how she was chosen and her capabilities, now even you know you proffer an opinion not an objective truism.
Even on Covid you assume too much. Anyone listening carefully heard the risks were greatly reduced not entirely eliminated. I’d grant you that in over simplifying nuance gets lost, but your overall contention shows you jumping to the conclusion you prefer a bit too quickly.
this reads like a conversation between bots
Cmon man. They sure don’t mind calling the thugs far right. What proof of this do we have? Keep in mind, they were labeled far right immediately.
Labels I agree can be too simplistic. Nonetheless Robinson and some of the other well known organisers to Police and security agencies are indisputably of the more nationalistic groupings some way from typical Tory Right. Thus Far Right not an unreasonable suggestion. Of course alot of those now being sentenced haven’t a great clue what politics overall they follow. Some clearly racist, esp after a few beers. Some just thugs and louts looking for a cause that’s justifies some thuggery
Thats why the 12 hour show trials are especially shocking.
Stop dissembling. He’s talking about facts not “truth”, and in this instance the facts will have been known within hours. Native born from wales, not an immigrant, killed children, motive as yet unknown. Making that quickly known would have gone a long way to diffusing much of the speculation.
And the expression is, “A lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on.” Mythology is something else entirely.
They issued details of his background in less than 24hrs. His age a day or so later. But the mythology had already run wild, clearly underpinning my point. The question thus was do you act knowing this is not a confirmed fact or wait a touch longer? Some clearly wanted to act before the reality lost them their opportunity.
ah, the saying is “a lie.. before the truth has its shows on”.
So If a bunch of hoodlums gave out your home address on Twitter falsely stating your were a known paedophile and called for a flash mob, how timely could any police force counter with true and reliable information? Would it make any difference when everyone is now an unfettered publisher with no requirement for truthfulness.
This article fails before it begins, because it does not bother to make the most important point of all: What is ‘misinformation’? What is truth?
No one knows what the truth is, especially not in real time. This is why we need to have open exchanges, arguments, contradictions. Then, over time, we can use this dialogue to approach truth.
Shutting down X, the last channel that is any way open in the digital age, will only make it harder for us to get at the truth.
And that is precisely what its detractors are hoping for.
Agree.
But of course the perpetrators of conspiracy and scapegoating know their audience not the patience for that and they prepare the ground.
Own up JW, you believe in conspiracy theories too.
I did once believe in Santa Claus AR I grant you, but only I think til I was 6. I never fell for the tooth fairy.
“malign external actors, welcome how division throws most off the scent of where are real problems reside”.
From an earlier post of yours on one of today’s articles.
I get your point but it does make the article a fail. It’s a very tight take-down of the inaccuracy of blaming incorrect information and technology.
The fascist-left want to ban actual free and open media and put citizen journalists in jail!!
It just takes a bit of pressure and they always, always reveal what they are.
Good to know you are supporter of Article 10 of the ECHR VJ. All is not lost.
Poor, dispossessed white people are being thrown in jail for expressing their opinions – a direct violation of article 10 of the human rights act.
Please post a condemnation of the British state for its flagrant human rights violations.
Violent criminals, mostly drunk, who thought attacking the Police and others justified being banged up for a period of reflection is a v worthy British outcome
The British state is arresting people for posting opinions on social media and showing footage of events.
Please condemn the British state for these article 10 human rights violations.
Agree.
And Musk’s hubris may just generate a further market reaction that hurts him. Who buys the Tesla? Not the drunken yob is it. And whilst he’s moaned about some Businesses withdrawing advertising is he really not grasping how the free market works? Pride always comes before a fall doesn’t it, so watch for the inevitable.
Increasingly we all recognise the pernicious impact social media can have, whether on our children or on the pace with which a conspiracy or malign deliberate misinformation can be transmitted. Cambridge Analytics were grasping and monetising the potential to use misinformation 10 yrs ago as we found out.
We shouldn’t ban X. Just apply the law evenly. If a newspaper conveyed racist bile they’d immediately fall foul of legislation.
If a newspaper conveyed racist bile they’d immediately fall foul of legislation.
You mean like the papers who have been sued or legislated for calling anyone who takes issue with unfettered immigration a racist or xenophobe? Like the people who have been taken to task for labeling anyone they don’t like as far right or extreme right? Because I must have missed those instances of the law being evenly applied.
But Elon Musk has always been like this and that’s never stopped customers buying Teslas in the past. I really don’t see what’s different now.
I’d suggest that Musk’s understanding of the free market is rather better than yours or mine, given how much richer and more successful he is than us (well me, at least).
But agree with you that we shouldn’t be banning X/Twitter. Or anything else. Let the good arguments beat the bad. And make sure it’s done in public.
From some very wise men. They saw it as so important that they made sure to write it down, to document it clearly:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I have no trust in what you might refer to as the ‘evenly applied law’. So, hands off!
The British political and media classes are addicted to twitter, despite most of them hating Elon Musk. None of them followed through when many said they’d leave it after Musk bought the platform. Their threats to ban will come to nothing. If it was banned in Britain they’d be cut off from their ideological daddies in the United States, who also, while hating Musk, are addicted to the platform. They’d be even less significant creatures than they are already.
Worth having a read of the Online Safety Law that passed before change of Govt. X and other social media platforms will need to be careful. It’s a phased implementation to give them time to take steps to ensure they do not fall foul of it.
General cross party support
British state is locking people up for posting opinions on social media as well as posting footage of events.
Please condemn the British state for its gross violations of article 10 of the human rights act.
If you don’t like Twitter, build your own social media platform.
Twitter is exercising its rights as a private company to monitor and filter the information on its platform.
The moderation policies of Twitter are the business of Twitter.
That was the party line when Trump was banned, and nothing has changed since.
build your own social media platform.
Ironically, that is exactly what the regressive left said in the pre-Elon days about Twitter and other social platforms. And then Musk bought the company.
As the old saying goes, the flak is heaviest when one is over the target. Nowhere does anyone in govt take even the slightest responsibility for the feckless immigration policy that has let this wound fester. It’s not like no one has said that continuing to import the third world is unsustainable. And after the Covid caper, anyone in govt or the legacy media whining about “misinformation” is rich.
Rumours and false accusation based on prejudices have always been, and will always be, part of human nature. Social media has just unfortunately turbocharged the spread and the consequences of them.
Am not on X (was on the platform back when it was Twitter, but discovered that lunatics live there, so came off it again), but what gets posted on there does help me to gain a better, fuller understanding of certain events (i.e. when videos are embedded into articles). Since I no longer trust mainstream media to provide full, unbiased reporting, social media is a valuable addition to the way I gather information and decide what I think.
England needs a written constitution that explicitly protects freedom of speech.
Excellent article! Hear, hear!
The moment you let a body be the arbiter of truth, you lose all objectivity. What gives any one person or body the right to decide what should or shouldn’t be printed (posted) by a citizen. Not to mention, this would just turn into a constant game of whack-a-mole, because guess what, you kill Twitter, and five other platforms will pop up in its place. Then you have a real big problem, things getting further and further segregated into smaller and smaller echo chambers, which intensifies the possibility of radicalizing someone.
Speech needs to be open and free. The masses will determine what matters and what doesn’t. Sometimes we will be right, sometimes we will be wrong, but there is simply no better way.
The Marixist ethos of Labour is on full display.
I keep hearing the political and media elites talk about disinformation with such wide context, but with no specific examples of what they deem as misinformation. I clearly can only take from this, that they are the perpetrators of the exact thing they are calling out others of spreading. Facts resonate, examples are clear, none are provided, therefore this is propaganda!
The BBC Would need to be shut down to reduce misinformation
Ouch! Awesome dissection, thank you.
There had been rumors or misinformation circulating in societies way before the computer era so blaming social media is very myopic. Some famous ones are the rumors spreading about the origin of the Spanish Flu or the “Great Fear” during the French Revolution.
For governments there is good misinformation and bad misinformation. Good misinformation is otherwise known as government propaganda. Bad disinformation is true information the government does not want you to know. Alas, for most people there is no way to know what is what. All information is suspect now.