Anti-Social Media, Southport and the Disinformation Machine

Riots, fuelled by disinformation and misinformation, erupted over social media overnight on Tuesday and Wednesday night after three children were tragically stabbed and killed during a dance class on Monday, July 29, 2024.

A website posing as a news organisation falsely claimed the suspect was named ‘Ali Al-Shakati,’ an asylum seeker who arrived by boat last year – claims that police have discredited.

Even if that false information was true – it is a criminal offence to identify a suspect who is a minor until legal proceedings have been completed or specifically authorised by a court.

These falsehoods, amplified by far-right groups online, sparked violent protests outside a mosque in Southport and then went across the country.

The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has urged the public to avoid “unhelpful” speculation and has said social media companies “need to take some responsibility” for content related to the attack.

It is here that Yvette Cooper is right.

Social media is available to everyone with a mobile phone. It is effectively a window into the world, be it local or international. Why is it that it is illegal to, for instance, incite hatred or put up racist material in a shop window in your local high street and not on a mobile phone?

There are approximately 360,000 retail shops on our high streets in the UK – all of them are subject to laws relating to discrimination such as race, religion, nationality, disability and sexual orientation to name but a few of quite a long list. So why is it that X/Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, etc are not subjected to these same laws that a shop is?

Of course, many will argue that cleaning up social media to comply with such laws would be impossible. But why should that be?

The Ford Motor Company employs 177,000 people worldwide. Revenue in 2023 was $176 billion, with a net profit of $4.3 billion. Facebook made $134 billion in revenue and nearly $40 billion in profit, with 76,000 employees worldwide. The difference is that one is subject to stringent laws and employs a lot of people, the other does not.

Of course, Ford has an unbelievable array of laws to comply with in each country to sell just one car. Take something simple like tyres. Tyres are subject to regulations and laws relating to fuel efficiency, safety, rolling resistance, wet grip, internal vehicle noise and external rolling noise, to name but a few. That’s before you get to tyre consumer labelling – which is a whole new area of regulation. And – each country has its own laws and rules. Your average standard car has about 30,000 components.

Every single component has to comply with regulations. Being sued by a disgruntled consumer is one thing – being stopped from selling cars in the first place is another. And yet, social media does not comply with even basic discrimination laws.

Not only that, the income generated by these platforms is often shifted ‘offshore’ and therefore, taxes due are not paid. TaxWatch analysis estimates that the British arms of seven major tech firms paid £750m in corporation tax in 2021 instead of a possible £2.8bn. However, a retail shop in your high street is not just liable for taxes due but has to comply with basic regulations (like health and safety, discrimination laws, registering with HMRC, insurance etc).

Social media companies should be subjected to stringent laws like any other business. If their ‘window’ displays inflammatory or discriminatory images of any type or incites violence – they should be held accountable.

The Southport violence, after three children were tragically stabbed and killed during a dance class on Monday, has been attributed, in large part, to the window of social media.

The Guardian reported that – “An account called Europe Invasion, known to publish anti-immigrant and Islamophobic content, posted on X at 1.49pm, soon after news of the attack emerged, that the suspect was “alleged to be a Muslim immigrant” – a claim that was false. The post has since been viewed 6.7m times.”

Breaking that one sentence down means that you could argue the case that the social media platform X/Twitter promoted illegal content nearly 7 million times, and as The Guardian says – “X played a key role as the events unfolded.”

Joe Ondrak, a senior analyst at Logically, a UK company that monitors disinformation, said the Muslim immigrant claim was amplified across social media as a result. “That particular phrase went around all the far-right influencers and channels,” he added.

Prominent right-wing individuals also played a role in spreading these false claims. Tommy Robinson, a British far-right activist whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, said in a post on X that rioters in Southport were “justified in their anger,” while Andrew Tate, a misogynist influencer, claimed the attacker was an “illegal migrant” and told people to “wake up”.

It should be pointed out that – X/Twitter, which is owned by Elon Musk, reinstated Robinson and Tate’s previously banned accounts after buying the platform in 2022. Here is a list of communication offences for England and Wales – do you see crimes being committed? If you do, why will nothing at all be done?

The question needs to be asked – how are social media platforms allowed to get away with breaking the law in such a way as to incite violence to the extent that one misleading statement is promoted in this way? I am, quite rightly, not allowed to do this here on TruePublica. You are not allowed to post a discriminatory message in the window of your car, local shop or pub – so why are individuals who don’t live here, don’t pay taxes here and don’t have to deal with the consequences here allowed to?

It is called ‘social media’ – in large part, it is antisocial and has become an agent for disinformation – quite often from malign and or foreign actors with bad intent (The Independent has published on article on this event and Russian disinformation). They are often platforms used to undermine the law and democracy itself.

---