Lots of talk about how those who have encouraged online hate need to be stopped. But how? Take this effort by Laurence Fox. In the mad World of X it gets over the line as ‘opinion.’ It may also do so in a court. So is it ok? Is it just stating a fact or is it distorting by implying all immigrants are the same? What about the lie that Starmer is on the side of rapists? Is it wrong to describe it as ‘hateful?’ Is this what preserving ‘free speech’ means? If not, how to combat it? What’s the position in law?
It's impossible to stop and even more impossible to police, that is the problem. It's been a problem ever since Social Media was created, and possibly even further back than that via SMS text messages. It's wrong, it's slander and it gets people in a lot of trouble, especially when it turns out said victims are perfectly innocent of the accusation.
In this instance the target is collective but also imprecise. So Fox can deny it means well-behaved immigrants, while some supporters may assume he means everyone.
It’s just a grift. And while I’m not keen to ‘both sides’ this, there will be ample examples of pretty extreme language used about Boris, Rishi and pals on X too from left leaning commentators in recent years. We’ve got to a point where everyone’s a traitor or a civil war is apparently looming. Reality is though most people don’t pay any attention to social media and certainly don’t live their lives through it and so look on in bafflement. It’s why Starmer is (rightly in my view) calculating from a political perspective he’ll earn more credit in the long run for talking tough with a simple message in response to the disorder, rather than trying to provide more of a nuanced commentary on it and the root causes. Some of that can come later but for now, no olive branch is needed as frankly those involved wouldn’t want it or accept whatever he said anyway. None of these people are looking to Starmer for leadership, so their hissy fit about him being mean to them is just funny. One interesting thing is earlier this week in a little-noticed court case, the High Court ruled that our laws about sending ‘grossly offensive’ content over a ‘public communications’ network extends to WhatsApp conversations in a private group between police officers. Now, if encrypted messages in a private group are illegal then X definitely has to be in scope too. It’s not even a private forum.
I agree with a lot of that but actually the reach of social media is pretty big. That post has had 1.2m views so far (bigger than probably most news bulletins bar the 10 PMs) and that doesn’t take into account use of the same post of FaceBook and other platforms. This isn’t simply a grift now, it’s one of the biggest cultural undertakings in the Western World, thousands of paid actors pumping out these messages, not to mention the efforts of hostile powers.
But who are the 1.2m? How many are real people? How many are bots or Elon inflating the numbers? And of those who are real how many are British? I’ve seen loads of American MAGAs chipping in on this. I’m just skeptical the reach is that extensive. Maybe I’m wrong.
When the owner of one of the biggest social media platforms is not only unwilling to police the extreme posts but is happy to make his own, we have a problem.... It's a balance between free speech and preventing incitement to violence. I think, if I were in government, I would seriously be considering sanctions against Musk now or even banning his business activities, including X, in the UK all together. We can't have foreign bad faith actors promoting division and misinformation in this country, leading to the violence we've seen over the last few days, and do nothing.
All of those points may be true, but that’s why there are thousands of opinion formers. I think it’s interesting that many genuinely seem to believe that everyone thinks like they do about it. I know the echo chamber phenomena is well known, but this feels like something more.
‘So tired of white invaders, travelling to brown lands killing, torturing and raping. Been doing it for centuries.’ What isn’t factually correct about the above? Is it helpful?
No, because declaring that the only "inevitable" outcome of the current situation is "civil war" is inciting violence. Can you not see that? He is saying that people should see their position as hopeless and take up arms to fight for what they believe. That is not a reasonable position for a billionaire owner of a social media business to take imho. I would say the exact same thing if he were a "lefty" saying that a civil war was "inevitable" too. It's nothing to do with his political ideology or whether I agree with his opinion or not. It's to do with him being in a position of influence due to owning a social media platform and using it to encourage insurrection and violence.
Lol you lot are incredible!! But he didn't say it directly he implied it.....where have we heard that tonight? I don't believe you would hold the same energy if the roles were reversed. That's the problem.
Well part of that is because leading opinion formers like Farage massively exaggerate support for their views by claiming ‘tens of millions’ of people support them. And those already predisposed to believe him will naturally believe that too. Reality is, what, less than 10000 people have gone out in the real world to protest and of those I’d guess maybe 1000 will have actually committed criminal offences? It’s just odd they never reflect on the difference in numbers.
He said it. It's literally in the tweet. It would be terribly naive for people to believe that tweets like this, and the likes of Tice, Farage, Fox etc, are not directly influencing the behaviour we have seen over the last week. Many of their followers do not "trust" or even watch/read main stream media. These "leaders" dismiss the MSM, especially the BBC, as "lefty", "elite" and "WEF controlled". So some (perhaps many) get all their information and leadership from social media. As this thread has exposed, much of that information is fake, or at least dubious, to say the least. For people on social media, that have 10ks of followers, or in the case of Musk 192m, to use terms like "civil war" or "violence is inevitable" is inciting this rioting. They may not be specifically calling for it but, after years of being conditioned with fake information about who their followers "enemy" is, using these terms is the very dictionary definition of dog whistling. a subtly aimed political message which is intended for, and can only be understood by, a particular demographic group. "dog-whistle issues such as immigration and crime"
That’s true but for those trying to inspire disorder the messages have delivered a very high impact. I certainly think it’s time to reflect on the value of certain social media platforms like X that allow unmoderated hatred and dog-whistles. And it certainly shouldn’t be treated as a legitimate outlet by Government and businesses anymore.
You’ve literally just said the PCC had said there is two tier policing, when in fact what she actually said was there had been allegations of it, and yet when Musk says ‘Civil War is inevitable’ he didn’t actually say it he just implied it. Bit confused aren’t you.
In theory, social media is covered by libel laws, as Joey Barton has recently found out to his cost. What Laurence Fox said is probably actionable. It is a direct and unfounded accusation with a clear meaning and a clear target. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences but in reality social media is such a Wild West it’s very difficult to regulate. EDIT: And, of course, Fox recently lost a case for something he said on social media.
And is now being sued again for similar comments about the Olympics opening ceremony. He must have lost hundreds of thousands in damages and costs in the last few years, and I can't believe his 'career' as an actor would have enabled him to accumulate a reserve of cash, so: Family money or shady backers?
It’s pointless discussing how the likes of Corbyn and the “Squad” on the left or idiots like Trump, Farage et al have been inflaming tensions from the other side as the fault lies with social media not taking their messages down alongside them taking a responsibility
It’s almost as if these SM giants allow all this 5h1t to remain uploaded as they perceive it as beneficial to their profits. Governments should not be encouraged to ‘meddle in the markets’ apparently.
Article on Stochastic Terrorism which gives a definition to the social media activity that has culminated in these events. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-stochastic-terrorism-uses-disgust-to-incite-violence/
How do we get beyond the pernicious falsehood that the white working class are despised? Seeing this a lot again now people are condemning rioters and racists, people meeting this with the above allegation. Like it’s wrong to condemn violence and racism. Another myth energetically promoted by the wealthy’s opinion formers as a wedge issue.
Laurence fox has declined in front of my eyes. From being 'brave enough to speak against mad wokery,' to flag burning, hate purveying, right wing nut job. I wonder if a perusal of his finances would find a period of time when his income stopped being from acting and then became lump sums deposited from untraceable shell companies with dubious ownership.
He likes to publish his "X" earnings once in a while to wind up the "wokes" and "lefties" whose interactions help pay for it. This was his latest: Being a grifting hate filled, flag burning, right wing nut job pays well it would seem.
Yes, he's definitely got lots of other grifts going on. But £500 a week for knocking out half a dozen "provocative" tweets a day ain't a bad return imho.
