Elon Musk's desire for UK civil war shows urgent need for social media crackdown

The riots will pass and prison sentences will deter, just as they have in the past. A sad procession of humanity being hustled through the courts and detained for prolonged periods of His Majesty’s Pleasure will discourage others while the godfathers retreat into the shadows. 

Beyond the short term, none of that changes the related political challenges which the Labour government has inherited. These are not capable of being turned around within four years, never mind four weeks and the riots have been a diversion from even embarking on that monumental task.

There is no “civil war”, as Elon Musk ludicrously claimed in an effort to encourage one. There are many people with deep concerns about the circumstances in which they live and the way society is heading. But very, very few of them – in any part of the UK – were anything other than appalled by what they saw.

It is not “England” which has been rioting, as some of our own more enthusiastic promoters of division pretend, but a tiny proportion of its population, far outweighed by the numbers who, by word and deed, transmitted the diametrically opposite message of a society which wants no part in racism or conflict. 

Some of the policy lessons are more urgent than others. First on the list, as highlighted obligingly by Mr Musk himself, should be the status of social media, its role in stirring up hate and inciting criminality. That issue has kicked around for years but recent events surely create a climate in which radical action is seen to be justified.

Weasel-worded nonsense

As London mayor Sadiq Khan argued this week, the Online Safety Act, as it stands, needs urgent revision before it is implemented. Keir Starmer should not flinch from that challenge. Mr Musk set out the terms of engagement when he defined himself as a “free speech absolutist” and it must be crystal clear in law and enforcement that no such absolute right exists.

Swinney demands answers from X, TikTok and Meta over 'racist and hateful speech'

The claim of internet companies to be “platforms” rather than “publishers” has always been weasel-worded nonsense. By controlling vehicles for communication, they are publishers and should be held accountable, day in, day out. If it isn’t fit to say or print, it should not appear online. That should be the starting point for regulation and criminal law, until the pips squeak.

Mr Musk, who has no interest in the UK other than to stir up trouble, is a power freak who puts the old press barons in the shade. His interventions have demonstrated the scale of his ambitions to disrupt democracies. In so doing, he has made the perfect case for governments to act. The law has taken a long time to catch up with “new media” and now is the moment to reassert the balance of rights.

Stirring the immigration pot

There is nothing new about the kind of disorder we witnessed or the racial hatred which runs through it. We have lived through the National Front and the BNP which promoted the same poison. None of them got very far in any part of the UK but each could turn out thugs on the streets when an opportunity arose.

It would have been naïve to think that the potential for similar trouble had gone away, given the profile of issues on which extremism feeds. It is impossible for the immigration pot to be stirred so hard for political ends, as it has been over the past couple of years, without it spilling over to embolden the racist fringes.

One organisation which needs to learn a rapid lesson is the Conservative party as they go about selecting a new leader. They will be off their collective rockers if they opt for any candidate who wants to build bridges with Nigel Farage. His role in encouraging conspiracy theories about the awful event in Southport was despicable and character defining.

Tories must take on Farage

Mr Farage thinks himself clever by keeping his words just on the right side of the line while the messaging is unmistakable. The Tories are well aware of that casuistry and association with him would put them in a hopelessly ambiguous position. Indeed, there is a strong case for concluding that it is the centre-right which has the strongest vested interest in confronting Farage, rather than embracing him.

We should be pleased that Scotland has stayed well clear of these events but also realistic. There is no history of racially motivated violence in this form but then neither has there been large-scale immigration at any point in recent decades. Our more prominent complaint has been of too few immigrants, to maintain the population and provide services, rather than too many. 

I agree. However, if there was, for example, a policy of dispersing immigrants more evenly throughout the UK, then it would be prudent to ensure that there are houses for them to live in. Far better to concentrate on addressing the fundamentals of the society which actually exists, rather than making assumptions of difference that might prove illusory if put to the test.

Long-range abuse

In this respect, we can look to Ireland for guidance. The great majority of Irish people have supported the liberal approach to immigration which its government adopted. Their history of exporting so many poor and dispossessed people to the world has helped create a disposition towards the needs and aspirations of others.

Yet they too have seen the same disturbances and racist acts which disfigured English towns and cities this week, as well as equivalent responses from the decent, overwhelming majority. And incidentally, the Irish Taoiseach was subjected to the same long-range abuse from Mr Musk earlier this year that Mr Starmer is now experiencing. 

Recent events have demonstrated that threats to democracy and decency come in diverse forms.  None of them can be ignored or appeased.