More stories

  • in

    Key questions: Social media moderation and inciting violence online

    Support trulyindependent journalismFind out moreCloseOur mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.Louise ThomasEditorThe role of social media in the violence and disorder on Britain’s streets has become a key issue, with the moderation and regulation of platforms coming under scrutiny.Misinformation spreading online in part helped sparked the riots, and now people are being arrested and charged for inciting hatred or violence through social media platforms.Here is a closer look at how social media content moderation currently works, how posting hateful material can be a crime and how regulation of the sector could change moderation going forward.– How do social media sites moderate content currently?All major social media platforms have community rules that they require their users to follow, but how they enforce these rules can vary depending on how their content moderation teams are set up and how they carry out that process.Most of the biggest sites have several thousand human moderators looking at content that has been flagged to them or has been found proactively by human staff or software and AI-powered tools designed to spot harmful material.– What are the limitations as it stands?There are several key issues with content moderation in general, including: the size of social media makes it hard to find and remove everything harmful posted; moderators – both human and artificial – can struggle to spot nuanced or localised context and, therefore, sometimes mistake the harmful for the innocent; and moderation is heavily reliant on users reporting content to moderators – something which does not always happen in online echo chambers.Furthermore, the use of encrypted messaging on some sites means not all content is publicly visible and can be spotted and reported by other users. Instead, they rely on those inside encrypted groups reporting potentially harmful content.In many instances, social media platforms are taking action against posts inciting or encouraging the disorder (PA) More

  • in

    Government will ‘look more broadly at social media’ after riots – Starmer

    Support trulyindependent journalismFind out moreCloseOur mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.Louise ThomasEditorThe Government will have to “look more broadly at social media” after recent rioting, the Prime Minister has said in an apparent hint that further regulation could be considered.False information spread on social media about the identity of the alleged Southport knife attacker has been seen as playing a role in sparking the recent violence, leading some to call for tougher regulation.Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has been among those calling for reform, saying recent events have shown regulations due to come into force under the Online Safety Act are “not fit for purpose”.Elon Musk, the owner of social media platform X, has been criticised for disseminating false information about recent disorder in the UK (Leon Neal/PA) More

  • in

    Joe Rogan wades into riots row as commentator compares UK to ‘Soviet Russia’ – and Elon Musk shares clip

    Support trulyindependent journalismFind out moreCloseOur mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.Louise ThomasEditorUS commentator Joe Rogan has waded in on the government’s response to the riots sweeping the UK, comparing the country to “Soviet Russia” in a clip shared by tech billionaire Elon Musk. Musk, dubbed “deeply irresponsible” for a barrage of attacks on the government’s attempts to tackle violent disorder in the UK, reposted the clip which shows Rogan making unsubstantiated claims about policing in England.Speaking on his podcast, the Joe Rogan Experience, the commentator hit out at what he dubbed “terrible government overreach”, falsely claiming 4,000 people in England have been arrested for “thought crimes”.Around 500 people have been arrested during disorder linked to the far-right, which began following the killing of three young girls in Southport after social media posts falsely claimed the suspect was a Muslim immigrant. A number of those relate to activity on social media but others include violent disorder, assault, punching police and burglary. Speaking on his podcast, the Joe Rogan Experience, the commentator hit out at what he dubbed “terrible government overreach” More

  • in

    Thailand’s reformist Move Forward Party, dissolved by court order, regroups as People’s Party

    Support trulyindependent journalismFind out moreCloseOur mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.Louise ThomasEditor Just two days after being disbanded by court order, Thailand’s main progressive political party regrouped Friday under a new name and vowed to continue its fight for reforms despite continuing opposition from the conservative establishment that blocked the party from taking power despite finishing first in last year’s election.Leaders of the dissolved Move Forward Party announced they were forming a new party to be called the People’s — or Prachachon — Party.Critics say the party’s dissolution was the latest attack on the country’s progressive movement in a yearslong legal campaign by conservative forces.Thailand’s Constitutional Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that the Move Forward Party violated the constitution by proposing to amend a law that criminalizes insulting the royal family.It also banned former Move Forward executives, including popular former chief Pita Limjaroenrat, from politics for 10 years.Move Forward won the most seats in the 2023 general election, but conservative, military-appointed Senators voted down its candidate for prime minister. The party’s surprise victory was seen as reflecting widespread desire for democratic reforms, especially among younger voters, after years of military rule.Lawmakers of a dissolved political party who are not banned from politics can keep their seats in Parliament if they join another party within 60 days. Move Forward had 148 lawmakers in Parliament, but five are now-banned executives who cannot continue to serve.Speaking at the new party’s inaugural meeting, attended by the 143 remaining MPs and other party members, lawmaker Parit Wacharasindhu announced that the reformed party would be named the People’s Party because it wants to be “a party from the people and for the people, and to work on creating a Thailand where absolute power belongs to the people.”He named five new executive board members, including the new party’s leader 37-year-old IT expert Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut.Natthaphong told the crowd the party would pursue the ambitious goal of winning enough seats to form a single-party government in the next elections in 2027.Wednesday’s court ruling drew international concern.“This decision disenfranchises the more than 14 million Thais who voted for the Move Forward Party in the May 2023 election and raises questions about their representation within Thailand’s electoral system,” said U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller. “The Constitutional Court’s decision also jeopardizes Thailand’s democratic progress and runs counter to the aspirations of the Thai people for a strong, democratic future.”“The United States does not take a position in support of any political party, but as a close ally and friend with deep and enduring ties, we urge Thailand to take actions to ensure fully inclusive political participation, and to protect democracy and the freedoms of association and expression,” he said.The European Union issued a similar statement.Volker Türk, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights said the court’s ruling “was deeply troubling and undermines democratic processes and restricts political pluralism.”“This decision seriously impacts fundamental freedoms of expression and association, and people’s right to participate in public affairs and political life in Thailand,” said Türk. “No party or politician should ever face such penalties for peacefully advocating legal reform, particularly in support of human rights.”Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin told reporters on Thursday that he expects Move Forward to respect the court’s ruling and to find an appropriate way to continue its work.When asked about the international reaction to the party’s dissolution, Srettha said he understood that concerns were expressed in a spirit of goodwill, but “they don’t mean anything, because we have sovereignty and our own ways in terms of political and democratic developments.” More

  • in

    Sadiq Khan says he does not feel safe as a Muslim following far-right riots

    Support trulyindependent journalismFind out moreCloseOur mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.Louise ThomasEditorSadiq Khan has said he does not feel safe as an openly Muslim politician following riots that have rocked the UK over the last week – and that he has been left heartbroken for his children. Hundreds of people have been arrested during disorder linked to the far-right, which began following the killing of three young girls in Southport after social media posts falsely claimed the suspect was a Muslim immigrant.“Like a lot of people of my generation, I felt triggered by the events of the last couple of weeks in particular”, the London mayor told The Guardian. “It’s difficult to explain the ripples when you’ve been targeted because of your religion or colour of your skin and you can’t change either of those things. And whether you’re seeing physical acts of violence taking place in the North West or the North East, you feel it in London.“What’s heartbreaking to me is my children’s generation had never experienced what I had. And they, for the first time, were scared. I thought I’d be the last generation to be scared, simply for who I am. And it breaks my heart.”Sadiq Khan has said he does not feel safe as an openly Muslim politician More

  • in

    Voices: Independent readers say ‘X is the disinformation company’ – and call for Elon Musk boycott

    Support trulyindependent journalismFind out moreCloseOur mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.Louise ThomasEditorIndependent readers have slammed social media companies, accusing them of allowing disinformation to run rampant as far-right riots spread across the country.When we asked for views, our community was particularly concerned about the role of Twitter/X owner Elon Musk, whose comments and actions have been labelled dangerous. Some even suggested boycotting his platform.More broadly, comments from our readers reflected a widespread frustration with social media’s role in amplifying disinformation, accusing platforms of prioritising profit over social responsibility. Many pointed out that the anonymity afforded to users enables harmful behaviour, while algorithms were seen as exacerbating issues by prioritising sensationalist content. And some readers felt governments should intervene more aggressively, enforcing stricter regulations to curb the spread of misinformation. The overarching sentiment was that while social media’s negative impact on society is clear, the solutions are complex, with no easy fix in sight.Here’s what you had to say:‘Rabid left’The rabid left often has wet dreams about silencing free speech so they can have a monopoly over the narrative. It is no different in communist China. It was the same in the USSR. “We are here to protect you” – this is the message they want to spread while they black access to your only means of open and free informationShabz‘Braverman, Badenoch and Farage have all contributed significantly’I have the sense that there are so many bad people around politics at the moment. The previous administration descended to an unprecedented level of deceit, corruption and hypocrisy. No sooner do we boot them out, than we have this uprising of racist bullies and hooligans, burning and looting and terrorising innocent people. And they have support in high places: Braverman, Badenoch and Farage have all contributed significantly to validating these crimes.Longmemory23‘The business of making money’Social media platforms aren’t in the business of social discourse or the exchange of ideas, they’re in the business of making money, however they can, and they do.I’m reminded of a quote; “If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner”. H. L. MenckenTomSnoutThe issues go deeper than social mediaThere are three fundamental problems here.The first is the willingness of people with power and influence to exploit or encourage the worst instincts of their supporters. This is what populists have always done and it’s been going on since at least Roman times.The second is the willingness of some people to believe practically anything if it’s spread by their peers or supported by their leaders, and fits in with their prejudices about the world.The third is the rising tide of civil unrest around the world, which seems to be driven by rising living costs, a sense of loss of control, inequality and reduced economic opportunities. Some of this is fundamentally driven by climate change, and that will become increasingly the case.These are big problems. Social media companies can certainly do better when it comes to removing and challenging untrue claims, but the issues are much more difficult to fix than that.RichT‘Legislate platforms as publishers’The platforms are publishers. Legislate them as such. Their negative impact on society would diminish overnight and hopefully many would go out of business. Amongst the replacements will be online platforms that prevent anonymity, further diminishing their horrible social effects. The ones that continue to allow anonymity will diminish in relevance as all their content will be suspect.What about privacy you say? You can have all the privacy you want but when you want to spam the planet with trash you have to sign your name.ChamatoNo politics on social media”Separating the truth from the lies on social media is harder than ever”Well, that says everything about why public conversations and opinions that one person wants to share with multiple unknown people should be banned on social media. That means that no political conversation should take place on social media until clear rules have been defined. All kinds of binding agreements have already been made in the political world, even financing an election. If that is possible, sharing messages and opinions on social media should certainly be possible. The private owners of social media should be prohibited from doing politics and messages to reach unknown people.We all see today that freedom of speech without responsibility is destroying society. What must happen first and foremost is to make someone bear full responsibility for the damage he causes with his speech. Justice must adapt more quickly to a society where, now not only can multiple unknown people be reached via written text, but they can also communicate via oral and visual media.demeyereMusk’s ‘civil war’Less concerning than the ‘free speech’ Musk champions on Twitter(X), are Musk’s own words. He is bandying terms like ‘civil war’ about the UK, when he clearly knows nothing of society on this side of the pond. The UK is not the USA. The numbers of numbskulls who think violence is the answer to everything is a much smaller proportion of the population here. If ever the military did become involved, it would swiftly ‘wipe the floor’ with these beer-bellied blowhards from ‘Spoons.jingscrivvens‘Disinformation is profit’Disinformation is profit. It multiplies like petrol-fuelled wildfires, and the clickbait offers substantial click-and-view revenue to the platform and boosts its share price. X in particular is revenue-starved. So they and their shareholders have little interest in stopping it until it dies down and/or people get killed. Then they do the misinformation sweep-up along with grandiose gestures of piety until the next time.That is not going to change unless they start risking fines and/or jail time for their turn in carrying contentsthat starts riots.’What about free speech then’ will rightly argue the free speech evangelists. Yes, they have a major point. This is where I believe compulsory moderation with the moderators drawn from a wide cross-section of society is an answer here.OffshoreInvestor‘Defenceless’No, they don’t do anything, but cosmetic measures. Misinformation means views = income. Real action against misinformation only costs money. So for the proprietors, it is a no-brainer. EU-wide measures with high penalties will work. The EU has enough clout to tackle companies like that. For the UK? You are practically defenceless. RebootedyetagainHans2‘Protecting the bottom line’Social media platform owners have no interest in the harm that their platforms can unleash. They can do much more, but choose to do the minimum, protecting their bottom line. Their power and influence need to be curbed. Anonomity should be removed for a start and algorithms that push certain types of content should be blocked. That is anathema to freedom of speech absolutists. I think freedom of speech is a precious commodity and needs to be both protected and used with great thought. Having the freedom to say something does mean you should or have to say something.Speculator‘Whose footsteps will Musk follow?’Musk’s complete disregard for morality, or lives for that matter, reminds me of when William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer ‘created’ a war between America and Spain over Cuba so that they could report on it. Pulitzer was so ashamed of his actions he set up the Pulitzer Prize for good and honest journalism, Hearst not so much; I wonder whose footsteps Musk will follow?TomSnoutSocial media is public, not privateI sat down once, to do the math.For Facebook to review everything (by a human) before posting would likely increase their workforce from 86,000 to about 50,000,000 (making FB to be the world’s largest company for about an hour, until it filed for bankruptcy). The idea of human reviewing is a practical absurdity.All you need to do is STOP TRUSTING TOTAL STRANGERS for no reason. Go to a news source for news, go to a doctor for medical advice and above all – take care of your children instead of letting them view whatever they like online and giving them a phone for unrestricted use. You may have to actually gain a tiny amount of expertise in the technology you use.There is NO practical way for social media to police social media and the word ‘POLICE’ should give you a clue what might be appropriate. POLICE.The only practical change I can see happening and helping is recognition that many online places are PUBLIC PLACES. Most civilians think they are in private online, when the truth is they are really in a public place. So legal recognition of that and legislation that places specific regulations in place to dictate action and require police to enforce those laws.Expecting law enforcement by private citizens is just saying that those, whose responsibility it is, aren’t up to the job.- signed a veteran information security software engineer.1Eloise‘Governments should intervene’They definitely aren’t and why should they? They are profiting from misinformation. I, however, don’t believe it should be up to these companies alone to ‘fix’ the nature of the content posted on their platforms. Governments should intervene and enforce similar laws on these companies to the laws that mainstream media must follow in relation to having to bear responsibility for what is published on their platforms.Anonymity gives people carte blanche when posting online material and the content on Twitter (much of it created by bots, I believe) is outrageous: full of hatred, racism, sexism, and misogyny. While the events over the past few days may respond to a number of contextual factors (including various governments’ anti-immigration rhetoric and increasing economic inequalities in the UK), I think it’s time restrictions are imposed on these companies that force them to correct algorithms so that these are based on facts and not on content created for sensationalist reading.Words have consequences so why should all this toxic content be allowed online? In my opinion, the very dangerous nature of social media is becoming more and more apparent every day and morally, society is stepping backwards. Now let’s fast forward to an increasingly AI-based world… scary!Maider‘Too late’Too late I’m afraid. People are well and truly hooked on it. How often do we pass people who are all holding their phones? Drivers stopped at a red light, so afraid they’ll miss something on social media that they don’t see the lights change? The tech companies won’t do anything that costs them money despite billions in profits – and while people remain anonymous, they’ll continue to spread disinformation. Makes one wonder what society has become.DIRKCUTLASS‘X is now THE disinformation company’Twitter? X is now THE disinformation company, with Musk using his own platform for spreading it, in person even.European99After Musk’s latest comments deliberately trying to start a civil war in this country, I hope people will start to boycott his website and his cars. It is the only language people like him understand.Erbium‘Glad I left’No they’re not doing enough! ‘X’ seems to be igniting racism! So glad I left Twitter a year or so ago.Gingerpunk‘Make it easier to sue’I’d hate for politicians to be making calls on what is acceptable speech. Isn’t that the Putin and Xi model?A middle approach would be to make it easier to sue media companies, journalists, and social media users, for any harm or defamation that ensues. As happened with Rudy Giuliani and Fox regarding their lies regarding election workers in Georgia.WordeeSome of the comments have been edited for this article. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article.All you have to do is sign up, submit your question and register your details – then you can then take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More

  • in

    Sadiq Khan says new law to make social media safer ‘not fit for purpose’

    Support trulyindependent journalismFind out moreCloseOur mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.Louise ThomasEditorSadiq Khan has urged the Government to revisit new social media rules, saying that the disorder of the last week shows that regulations due to come into force are “not fit for purpose”.New regulation of social media platforms – the Online Safety Act – became law in the UK last year but has not yet fully come into effect.Once in place, it will require platforms to take “robust action” against illegal content and activity, including around offences such as inciting violence.I think what the government should do very quickly is check whether the Online Safety Act is fit for purpose; I think it’s not fit for purposeMayor of London Sadiq KhanBut the Mayor of London said that the rioting over the last week, which came after misinformation about the suspected Southport attacker spread on social media, showed that reform of the regulation was necessary.“The way the algorithms work, the way that misinformation can spread very quickly and disinformation … that’s a cause to be concerned, we’ve seen a direct consequence of this,” he told The Guardian.“I think what the government should do very quickly is check whether the Online Safety Act is fit for purpose; I think it’s not fit for purpose.”After the stabbings in Southport on July 29, an incorrect name and a false story around the background of the suspected perpetrator spread online.In recent days Elon Musk, the owner of X, has been heavily criticised for posts about the disorder in the wake of the Southport stabbings.The billionaire was called “deeply irresponsible” by Justice Secretary Heidi Alexander for posting that “civil war is inevitable” in the UK.He also reposted an image of a fake news headline about the UK’s response to riots.The Online Safety Act will, for the first time, make firms legally responsible for keeping users safe when they use their services.In a few months, new safety duties under the Online Safety Act will be in place, but you can act now – there is no need to wait to make your sites and apps safer for usersIt will require platforms to put in place clear and proportionate safety measures to prevent illegal and other harmful content from appearing and spreading on their sites.The biggest platforms could face billions of pounds in fines if they do not comply.Named managers could be held criminally liable in some instances, and sites may face having their access limited in the most severe cases.Ofcom, which will oversee the new laws, on Wednesday urged social media companies to do more to deal with content stirring up hatred or provoking violence on Britain’s streets.The watchdog said: “In a few months, new safety duties under the Online Safety Act will be in place, but you can act now – there is no need to wait to make your sites and apps safer for users.” More

  • in

    Starmer vows ‘no let-up’ on rioters as police hail ‘turning point’ in violence

    Support trulyindependent journalismFind out moreCloseOur mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.Louise ThomasEditorSir Keir Starmer has told far-right thugs that there will be no let-up in bringing them to justice, as he held his third emergency Cobra meeting in a week amid concerns there could be a new wave of violence this weekend.It is understood he told the meeting on Thursday evening that police need to remain on “high alert” so they are prepared for any possible further unrest in the coming days.His warning came as police chiefs said they believe there has been a “turning point” in the rioting that has scarred Britain’s streets, after a show of mass unity by anti-racist protesters appeared to see off the threat of attacks on asylum centres and rights lawyers. More rioters were jailed on Thursday, including a couple in Hartlepool who joined a mob after a day playing bingo, and a 69-year-old retired welder in Liverpool who set fire to bins and threw missiles at police.Starmer visits the Solihull Mosque in Birmingham, and meets Jehangir Malik, member of the mosque management team, and Sohail Hasani, founding trustee of the mosque and community centre More