Social media giants are in the crosshairs of a British government determined to stop disinformation of the type that sparked recent riots but officials are determined to avoid a slanging match with the billionaire owner of X, Elon Musk.
As parts of the country burned last week, Mr Musk tweeted “civil war is inevitable” in the UK, compared Britain to the former Soviet Union and accused the country of “two-tier policing”, which he sees as stoking future conflict.
His intervention came during days of far-right violence and disorder, which were sparked by a false social media post claiming the attacker who killed three young girls at a dance class in Southport was a Muslim and an asylum seeker.
A few sentences on the internet spread rapidly and soon towns across England and Northern Ireland were scenes of public disorder, looting and arson.
The posts by the owner of X, formerly Twitter, were aimed squarely at Prime Minister Keir Starmer. His spokeswoman on Monday said he would not be involving himself a tit-for-tat exchange with Mr Musk.
"We're not going to get into kind of a running commentary of what that entails, but again the focus has been at the moment on dealing with the disorder making sure that communities are safe and security," the spokeswoman said. "We would add, though, that does also involve police going after influencers and those who are stirring up hatred online, alongside those who have been committing violence on our streets."
The South African-born tycoon's “two-tier policing” jibe stems from a conspiracy theory that contends British police treat groups differently depending on their politics.
He also retweeted false claims Mr Starmer had considered setting up detainment camps in the Falkland Islands.
With a handful of platforms dominating social media and Mr Musk acting as influencer-in-chief, the month-old government is reviewing its powers, including a freshly passed act on online safety. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle is expected to meet representatives of social media companies again this week, having done so last Monday.
Mr Kyle said last week there was a "significant amount of content circulating that platforms need to be dealt with at pace".
Last Friday, Tyler Kay was sentenced to 38 months in prison following the recent riots, during which far-right protesters targeted immigrant-owned businesses and hotels where asylum seekers were housed.
But the father of three, of Northampton, was not convicted for violent unrest or taking part in a riot – his crime was committed online. The 26 year old pleaded guilty to writing an offensive anti-immigration post on X, calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set alight.
Shortly before Mr Kay's sentencing, Jordan Parlour received a 20-month jail sentence at Leeds Crown Court for urging people to target another hotel housing asylum seekers, having pleaded guilty to publishing written material intended to stir up racial hatred.
Monitoring activity
According to The Telegraph newspaper, Mr Kyle is relying on the National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT) to scrutinise internet activity after the children's deaths and the disinformation about their attacker.
The NSOIT developed out of the Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU), a government agency set up during the pandemic to combat disinformation around coronavirus.
It was, however, the subject of controversy as it was accused of simply eavesdropping on those who opposed the government's line on lockdowns and pandemic policies in general.
Nonetheless, the British government wants to make an example of people who seek to encourage others online to commit criminal acts and to give the UK regulator, Ofcom, more power to tackle the social media companies that allow it happen on their platforms.
“Let me also say to large social media companies, and those who run them – violent disorder clearly whipped up online: that is also a crime. It’s happening on your premises and the law must be upheld everywhere,” Mr Starmer said last week.
Experts say while the fundamental socioeconomic reasons for the riots may have made them an eventual certainty, the online lies served as a significant catalyst.
"The recent riots have complex social roots, but the recycling of patently false information on social media undoubtedly played a role in amplifying and targeting disorder," Graham Murdock, emeritus professor culture and economy, told The National.
Online Safety Act
One obvious option now open to the government is to amend the Online Safety Act, a sprawling set of legislation which, for the most part, is due to be enacted this year and early next year.
At its heart would be a proposal to force social media companies to remove "legal but harmful" content, a clause that was dropped two years ago during the passing of the law through Parliament.
The clause, which would have given the UK some of the tightest social media laws in the world, was replaced with rules governing media companies' transparency in relation to content moderation, provisions for freedom of speech and strict definitions of illegal content.
But online posts from the likes of Mr Kay and Mr Parlour have now prompted some to call for the reintroduction of the "legal but harmful" clause.
“Very swiftly the government has realised there needs to be amendments to the Online Safety Act,” London mayor Sadiq Khan told The Guardian newspaper.
“I think what the government should do very quickly is check if it is fit for purpose. I think it’s not fit for purpose.”
Beefing up the Online Safety Act would essentially sharpen the teeth of the regulator, Ofcom, enabling it to step beyond the law's current provisions to impose fines and criminal sanctions on senior social media executives who fail to act on posts with illegal content, and those that fall into the realm of "legal but harmful".
The Centre for Countering Digital Hate said while it hopes for a "robust implementation" of the Online Safety Act, the government must be in "constant review of the efficacy of the regime and grant new powers to the regulator as needs arise".
'Indispensable space'
Past experience tells governments that bringing the tech giants to heel is often easier said than done, particularly in relation to social media.
Woven so intricately into the world of mass communication, politicians in most western nations see social media platforms like X as both a useful tool and a dangerous weapon.
"Some voices are calling for a ban on X but this is a non-starter," Prof Murdock told The National.
"Despite its transformation under Musk, politicians still regard X as an indispensable space for publicity and promotion. None of the alternatives can match its reach."
Rather than have to deal with a full-scale confrontation with the social media companies, the UK's department for science, innovation and technology said its “immediate focus" is to work with them "to tackle content that has contributed to the disorder of the past week”.
However, Bruce Daisley, a former vice president for Twitter, believes Mr Musk has scant regard for authorities.
“Musk appears to be deliberately thumbing his nose at any sense he’s held accountable,” he said.
“These people are operating as a renegade business beyond the local law.”
Even though a newly empowered Ofcom might have the clout to impose enormous fines on the likes of X for transgressing the Online Safety Act at some point, such penalties would have "little or no impact" and would "not act as a deterrent", according to Prof Murdock.
In addition, he said such action may "trigger a response, with Musk threatening to withdraw X from countries he classifies as hostile".
Nonetheless, the civil liberties group Big Brother Watch feels the Online Safety Act is in essence the "delegation of responsibility for individuals’ online expression to social media platforms themselves" and "runs contrary to the general principle that people should ultimately be responsible for their own actions".
Others, such as Prof Murdock, feel the "limits of relying on self regulation" by social media platforms have been demonstrated and that recent events in the UK have "fuelled renewed demands for tougher action".
However, X may fall foul of the anti-terrorist organisation of which it is a founding member.
It is signed up to the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, which includes major social media groups such as Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, Alphabet's YouTube as well as X. Some, meanwhile, are concerned about content posted by the Palestinian militant group Hamas on Mr Musk's social media site.
According to The Sunday Times, X is now the easiest social media platform on which to find Hamas videos, citing the Community Security Trust, a charity that combats extremism and anti-Semitism.
As such, the credibility of global internet forum is being undermined by X's membership and its position on the its board, The Sunday Times said.
