Fixing social media in antisocial times

That caveat aside, there has been no shortage of inflammatory misinformation in the run-up to the violence. The apparent instigating event for the violence in Southport itself was the entirely false naming of an individual who was supposedly a Muslim asylum seeker as the perpetrator of the attack that killed three young girls and hospitalised several more.

Despite prominent claims that this was some form of Russian-state-connected information operation, the earliest account sharing that false ‘fact’ so far is a UK-based woman who played a prominent role spreading Covid misinformation, but who was invited on multiple UK radio shows despite (or because of) that. She has given multiple contradictory explanations as to how she came to see the false name, none of which have been corroborated.

Sharing the name of an alleged attacker – let alone outright inventing one, as someone must have done in this instance – is always an egregious act. If it is wrong, it risks vigilante attacks or random street violence against innocent targets. If it is correct, it risks undermining the fair trial that will be needed to bring justice to a real attacker.

But other misinformation in these febrile situations is often shared more innocently. Rumours fly when tensions are high and people have taken to the street. Over the weekend there were false reports of stabbings, acid attacks, and more. Some people share these in good faith to condemn such actions, others share them to fan the flames. Few bother to check whether there is any reliable reporting as to whether they have actually happened.

As the dust settles, there will be questions as to what social media should do in these situations. Until recently, the main problem with social networks was that they did not devote enough resources to tackling misinformation, or acted too slowly to recognise extraordinary circumstances.

That was before Elon Musk bought Twitter and renamed it ‘X’. Not only has Musk intentionally brought back many UK far-right accounts that had previously been banned from the site, he has taken their money to give them the verified blue ticks – and with it additional credibility and algorithmic boosting. 

Musk has been fanning those flames personally, too – replying to one (blue tick) user that “civil war is inevitable” in Britain. Some of the accounts whose previous bans he reversed have played major roles in fanning the flames over the last week. The blame for much of this very obviously lies with Elon Musk, but in reality there are limits to how much could or should be done to punish him.

The most extreme response would be to shut down Twitter in the UK entirely, but banning a whole social network from a country is overly punitive and against the basic principle of free speech – and In practice is often ineffective because users just shift to networks that are harder for police to track, such as WhatsApp groups, Telegram channels, or even closed Facebook groups.

Former defence committee chair Tobias Ellwood trotted out another familiar solution, which is to ban social media anonymity – but research has shown time and again that people spread hate routinely on real-name accounts (Facebook has had a real-name policy since inception, although it is not difficult to make and maintain a fake account). 

Other sanctions on Twitter are limited: Twitter now has few UK-based staff, so there is limited scope for sanctions. Hitting Twitter and thus Musk in the wallet seems to be the obvious response for authorities, and perhaps the most workable.

Elon Musk has emboldened the far right to instigate violence on UK shores. But being emboldened to incite criminal acts in the open has a serious risk of backlashing on the far right themselves.

Musk’s emboldening of far-right trolls on Twitter is a particular danger to those behind them, as many of them have spent the money to get their blue tick, even if their account remains anonymous.

That means that Twitter has their real-world details: they have had to show ID to be able to verify their account and hand over payment information tied to their real-world identity, too. Twitter’s compliance with requests from law authorities for user data is now almost 100%, as Elon Musk hasn’t wanted to spend the money to fight any of them.

As a result, the emboldened online agitators – some of whom think they are being oh-so-clever by staying behind their keyboards rather than taking to the streets – might find the police knocking on their doors sooner than they think. And as recent history with environmental protestors shows, UK law is perfectly capable of dealing with agitators even if they don’t themselves break the law on the streets.

Some of those actually on the streets will come to regret the open posting on video on Twitter, TikTok and Facebook too. While it might feel like swaggering confidence in the moment, it starts an open season on identification of people in the footage – many of whom are making no attempt to disguise themselves.

Others are straightforwardly doomed: videos show people carefully covering their whole face, but leaving their arms (with their distinctive tattoos) on show. These public domain videos, coupled with the fact that mobile phones give away your location history with pinpoint accuracy, will together produce a nasty surprise for those involved.

Social media isn’t making anything better in this grim week of riots, but it is not at the core of the story – even if a problem that was once neglect is now fuelled by the malice of the world’s richest man. But that might not work out the way the people stirring the pot imagine: consequences for online actions can very quickly become all too real.

The open incitement of this violence on social media is horrifying, and is rightly spurring calls for action from across the political divide. But the very fact of it happening in the open might be a blessing in disguise, and make punishing the ringleaders much easier.

The internet is the communication tool of the 21st century, it will naturally play a role in all social unrest and upheaval. How those effects work out – and who they benefit in the end – is not always as obvious as it first seems.

If overconfident and open social media incitement lands keyboard warriors with hefty prison sentences – and riots mean much longer prison sentences for even ‘routine’ offences than usual – then Elon Musk may accidentally have screwed over the very far right edgelords he bought Twitter to serve.