Independent 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 information
Shabz
‘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. Mencken
TomSnout
The issues go deeper than social media
There 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.
Chamato
No 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.
demeyere
Musk’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?
TomSnout
Social media is public, not private
I 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.
European99
Boycott
After 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.
Wordee
Some 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.
Most Popular
Comments / 0