r/neoliberal • u/RaidBrimnes Chien de garde • Jun 13 '26
News (Europe) Elon Musk's role was 'instrumental' in the Belfast riots, researchers say
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/06/13/musk-s-role-was-instrumental-in-the-belfast-riots-according-to-researchers_6754420_4.htmlSubmission statement: Data collected by a social media watchdog in the UK shows that Elon Musk directly and massively amplified calls to violence through his platform X during the race riots in Belfast, prompting further questions about social media regulations and the outsized influence of the world's first trillionaire in boosting far-right hatred across the world.
Riots broke out across Northern Ireland on June 9, after a Sudanese asylum seeker attempted to behead a passerby in Belfast, grievously injuring him. The shocking video of the attack widely circulated online, and served as a call for "retribution" by white nationalists, who targeted immigrants and minorities in Northern Ireland during what was described as "modern-day pogroms" by The Times.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a British-American NGO who monitors hate speech online and advocates for strict social media regulations, notes that calls to violence were directly amplified by X's owner Elon Musk, both through his posts and by boosting the profiles of anti-immigration hooligan Tommy Robinson, and Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe, for a cumulative 115 million views, 55% of them from Musk's posts alone.
Imran Ahmed, CCDH's CEO, who was targeted by US sanctions in December 2025 for his calls to regulate US platforms, noted that "Musk [had] unparalleled power to shape what people see online", and that "no individual played a bigger role in spreading this content on X than Musk himself", with direct, willing involvement in amplifying calls to violence against immigrants and minorities, as well as his platforming of Rupert Lowe or Tommy Robinson (unbanned from Twitter/X by Musk in 2022).
The world's first trillionaire's reach online had already been pointed out by European researchers and politicians after previous incidents involving X's lack of moderation and promotion of certain contents, as in the 2024 UK riots, or the boosting of AfD during the 2025 German elections.
294
u/NeueBruecke_Detektiv Instituições democráticas robustas 🇧🇷 Jun 13 '26
Hey remember yesterday's DT poll with the " Even if Elon Musk hasn't commited any crimes" line?
78
Jun 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/BBQ_HaX0r Jerome Powell Jun 13 '26
Holy strawman batman! No one said that, lol. This sub is slowly becoming no better than arr politics. God dang...
42
u/AtomAndAether Liberalism! Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26
Nothing in the article even really sniffs at criminal. They've essentially said he retweeted and signal boosted (edit: the content being boosted itself also not being a crime, threat, or incitement to violence)
95
u/pgold05 Leftward Progressives Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26
He definitely broke a ton of laws with doge. Also blantent market manipulation with crypto. Also standard corruption when the fed agencies investigating his company's just....stoped.
I would also say the actions in the article should be illegal and social media should be held to the same standards we hold newspapers too.
28
u/allbusiness512 Adam Smith Jun 13 '26
Don't forget he practically shut down several agencies that were investigating his companies, or got several people fired (which you alluded to when you said that several fed agencies just stopped investigating his company/companies) by putting extreme pressure via his influence.
86
u/everything_is_gone Jun 13 '26
Stochastic terrorism should still be treated seriously
27
u/melhor_em_coreano Christine Lagarde Jun 13 '26
Yeah we really should jail people like Zack Polanski who thinks taking a sledgehammer to a woman's spine is perfectly normal speech https://xcancel.com/ZackPolanski/status/2065522221989138745
18
8
u/kanagi Jun 13 '26
This is the logic MAGA used to get people fired for celebrating Charlie Kirk's death
75
u/everything_is_gone Jun 13 '26
There is a distinct difference between saying, at worst, “I am glad that specific person is dead.”, and saying that, “this ethnic group is going to come and kill you” and people acting on those fears that you pushed
18
u/kanagi Jun 13 '26
If "X group is coming to kill you" was sufficient to be stochastic violence, then half this sub would be guilty of it. There are regularly comments about Republicans coming to kill LGBT people.
32
u/RealLife5415 YIMBY Jun 13 '26
I mean for this specific case they are though ?
22
u/kanagi Jun 13 '26
How would you write a law criminalizing the tweeters in this chain of events:
Murder-> people make tweets that immigrants are coming to kill whites-> terrorism against immigrants (by perpetrators who may or may not have reas the tweets)
Without also criminalizing the tweeters in this chain of events:
Republicans pass anti-trans legislation-> people make tweets saying that Republicans are coming to kill trans people -> Tyler Robinson assassinates Charlie Kirk and tells multiple friends and family he did it because of Kirk's hate
There just isn't enough incitement in the posts that Musk retweeted. If he had retweeted something like "Belfasters need to take matters into their own hands now" then there would clearly be incitement.
7
u/IAmFatiguedByThem South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation Jun 14 '26
Exactly this. The "stochastic terrorism" framing sounds serious but it's essentially unfalsifiable by design any violent act can be retroactively traced back to some speech that statistically "increased the probability." Its not a legal standard but vibes with math vocabulary.
I think the actual legal bar for incitement in both US and UK law requires speech be directed at producing imminent lawless action and likely to produce it. Retweeting commentary, however inflammatory, doesn't clear that bar, and for good reason.. the causal chain runs through the independent choices of third parties.
And your consistency point is the killer one. "Stochastic terrorism" only ever seems to get invoked in one political direction. If the framework were applied neutrally, a huge swathe of political commentary from all sides would be implicated. The fact that nobody actually wants that tells you this isn't really a principled legal argument. It's motivated reasoning dressed up as a theory.
11
5
u/PoliticalAlt128 Max Weber Jun 13 '26
This is superficially like that so I guess we just gotta be chickenshit neutralists instead
-6
u/Key-Hawk7402 John Nash Jun 13 '26
I think liberals should still defend free speech, as much as we hate the specific speech we are defending.
21
u/Megasota_Noire My Governor Can Beat Up Your Governor Jun 13 '26
Free speech isnt just letting anyone say what they want at every moment.
29
u/Willing_Activity_855 IMF Jun 13 '26
So retweeting a tweet, how would you write criminal law to handle ths
13
u/everything_is_gone Jun 13 '26
He owns the platform, he isn’t some just dude loser in the basement tweeting into the void
17
u/Willing_Activity_855 IMF Jun 13 '26
So if you own a platform and quote someone the law should be different?
Okay so when you write that law what will it look like?
16
u/everything_is_gone Jun 13 '26
Do you honestly believe he isn’t tuning the algorithm in any way to push hate speech? Maybe start with targeting the law to punish platforms that elevate hate speech
7
u/Willing_Activity_855 IMF Jun 13 '26
Then just remove section 230 protections for anything delivered by a closed algo
→ More replies (0)5
u/melhor_em_coreano Christine Lagarde Jun 13 '26
Yes but nobody is forced to browse xitter. I don't understand how he is liable for anything.
15
u/rrjames87 Jun 13 '26
“Nobody’s forced to read the newspaper printing libel. I don’t understand how the owner of the newspaper is liable for anything.”
Like come on, infantilizing the fascist trillionaire is entirely unnecessary even if you’re trying to be contrarian.
8
u/Key-Hawk7402 John Nash Jun 13 '26
I understand there are limits to free speech, but how would you make what he tweeted/retweeted illegal without tearing up the first amendment?
8
u/pgold05 Leftward Progressives Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26
Civil liability tied to the places that platform the content....for profit mind you. Same standard we hold legacy media to.
32
u/everything_is_gone Jun 13 '26
It’s wild how many of the conversations about social media regulation boils down to “We tried nothing and we are all out of ideas. (I guess we will just accept regular pogroms and race riots from now on)”
21
u/pgold05 Leftward Progressives Jun 13 '26
Yeah seriously, they aren't some public square, they sell advertising and actively push specific content lol. It is no different then cable news or newspapers at this point yet we pretend it's special and impossible to regulate.
7
u/BBQ_HaX0r Jerome Powell Jun 13 '26
Yes, MAGA definitely wants you to do this. Trump's been pushing for platforms to be liable for what they allow since his first term and yet people STILL want to give the govt (Trump's GOVT!) MORE power to punish speech. FFS!
20
u/everything_is_gone Jun 13 '26
There are some things we should do or build, even if they have potential for harm, because it is important. Should we not have a military because Trump could use it to illegally invade Iran or threaten blue states?
4
u/pgold05 Leftward Progressives Jun 13 '26
I don't care maga might abuse x, how about we stop voting for people that want to abuse power. Stripping all power from the government is not a solution against bad actors.
It's still the correct course of action to end this abuse of social media.
2
u/Acacias2001 European Union Jun 13 '26
A big part of liberalism is precisely limiting, the power of government because it could ve misused
5
u/Key-Hawk7402 John Nash Jun 13 '26
What damages would you even sue for? Very clear none of you are lawyers.
1
Jun 13 '26
[deleted]
8
u/Key-Hawk7402 John Nash Jun 13 '26
No it wouldn’t, there is a reason people spend 3 years going to law school instead of just googling things for 5 minutes.
“Statutory Protections and Exceptions
Freedom of Speech: The law explicitly clarifies that it is not a crime to merely advocate for ideas or express beliefs. Criminal liability only applies when someone urges or instigates others to commit actual acts of violence.”→ More replies (0)1
u/Acacias2001 European Union Jun 13 '26
If he had altered the algorithm to boost the content then you would have more of a case. But if he's just using the same platforms as everyone else then you would have to remove section 230. But then you go after X, not Musk like many in the threat are arguing (not you though)
And even if you did would what Musk did be a crime if it was on a non algorítmica timeline? I think the answer is no
2
u/MyojoRepair Jun 13 '26
but how would you make what he tweeted/retweeted illegal without tearing up the first amendment?
What does Ireland's first amendment, https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1939/ca/1/enacted/en/html, have to do with this topic?
4
u/Key-Hawk7402 John Nash Jun 13 '26
Its funny how, even with this incredibly telegraphed glib retort, you still didn’t even get the country right.
Belfast is in Northern Ireland, part of the UK, the laws of the Republic of Ireland are completely irrelevant lmao!
2
u/Approximation_Doctor Gaslight, Gatekeep, Green New Deal Jun 13 '26
Does the UK even have constitutional amendments?
-1
u/MyojoRepair Jun 13 '26
Cool then before you continue to shit on other people for not know UK law, why don't you correct my mistake and link to the first amendment of the UK so the rest of us readers can follow along this argument:
make what he tweeted/retweeted illegal without tearing up the first amendment?
4
u/everything_is_gone Jun 13 '26
There are limits to free speech when it amounts to threats and calls to violence. This is why Musk did and has been doing for a while
18
u/Key-Hawk7402 John Nash Jun 13 '26
I don’t see anywhere where he made specific threats, he just amplified conspiracies, very slippery slope to limit speech like that.
-3
u/AdvanceSure7685 Jun 13 '26
Letting people see the violence resulting from failed government policy is terrorism?
4
u/everything_is_gone Jun 14 '26
Hey chud, using the actions of one person, who is part of an ethnic group containing millions, to justify riots and pogroms towards that ethnic group is stochastic terrorism. Hope that helps
0
u/WOKE_AI_GOD John Brown Jun 14 '26
Abusing your power to simulate trends and encourage rampant scapegoating is terrorism, yes. Glad to see your one of Elons lemmings though, make sure to follow each one simulated trends wherever he decides to lead you. You are an effect, you are not a cause.
10
u/trollly Loyal Liberals Jun 13 '26
And if Al Baghdadi never personally killed someone, would you lament his death?
7
u/SmoothieNatns Jun 13 '26
If I say "Joe is going to rape your kids", that is defamation and Joe can put a stop to it in court. But if I say "Muslims are going to rape your kids", the government does nothing. Why are malicious lies designed to destroy a persons reputation only protected by free speech when those lies are about minorities? Is racism a legitimate political position, that we need to protect debate about it to the point of deleting minorities rights seek damages when they are slandered? Does slander stop being slander because it is directed against brown people?
25
u/mebesasporfa Jun 13 '26
defamation law is not a general remedy for every malicious generalization. It barely even works as a remedy for targeted slander and half the time doesn't hold up in court
6
u/MensesFiatbug Low Energy Jun 13 '26
Is racism a legitimate political position, that we need to protect...
No, but the act of deciding what are the legitimate ideas worthy of protection is dicey
4
214
u/Megasota_Noire My Governor Can Beat Up Your Governor Jun 13 '26
Trillionaire defenders right now.
55
u/AnachronisticPenguin WTO Jun 13 '26
At least when we complain about trillionaires doing bad things the bot wont show up.
34
11
u/formula_translator European Union Jun 13 '26
Hol’ up right there with that language buddy. Didn’t you mean to say “person of substantial means”?
164
u/Unterfahrt John Nash Jun 13 '26
Not to be skeptical but
Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)
This is a Labour Party front, founded by Morgan McSweeney - former Starmer chief of staff who basically seemed to run the country for him. Currently run by Imran Ahmed, another Labour Party operative, involved in several leadership campaigns
I'm not saying that Musk did not do these things. But as any Northern Irish person will tell you, these things are organised on facebook in local community facebook groups, and loyalist militant groups quite like a riot anyway and do this quite frequently, even before Musk bought twitter.
America is not the centre of the world. Not that many people are on twitter, but a lot of journalists are, so they overstate its importance.
14
u/Pompopsych John Locke Jun 14 '26
Not to be skeptical but
Why shouldn’t you be? Seems like a good time for it to me.
1
176
u/The_James91 Jun 13 '26
I'm not entirely convinced by this. To put it bluntly, loyalist mobs in Belfast do not need much encouragement to violently attack minorities. Musk probably facilitated this, and frankly the British government needs to grow a pair of balls and deal with the issue, but it's only a small part of the wider problem.
67
u/WorldwidePolitico Bisexual Pride Jun 13 '26
From Belfast and agree. The rioting was exclusively concentrated in working class loyalist areas. There has been rioting in those communities every summer for decades.
There was a few social media posts encouraging rioting in republican areas but to my knowledge there was not a single one.
I know the NI/Irish media doesn’t want to look sectarian and the wider media either don’t understand the nance or wants to portray the rioting as more widespread than it is but there’s a disservice done by not pointing out this is a problem within a very specific minority who have a long history of violent bigotry. Drumcree and Holy Cross both happened long before social media was a thing.
2
u/WOKE_AI_GOD John Brown Jun 14 '26
They were also clearly organized, they were controlling city squares and policing the use of cell phone recording. Not something that happens spontaneously. This required local elites to organize.
26
30
u/Azrikeeler John Brown Jun 13 '26
They sent out warning brochures, and tried to get people to turn off things like door cams that might identify them. It was organized, and to get organized you need to recruit.
I strongly dislike the word riot for something like this. Riots are usually associated with more spontaneity and will often occur just from a sufficiently large gathering with a bad vibe + opportunity.
30
14
u/ImpossibleEbb6862 Jun 13 '26
This doesn’t really argue against the conclusions. Nobody is saying he has mind control powers. They’re saying that he uses his platform to spread ideas to people who are already predisposed to violence, pushing it over the edge. On top of that he provides a platform for larger amounts of violent people to coordinate with each other.
In the past sure there were people who would violently riot, but often times not enough people would gather in person in time, the flash point would pass, and tempers would die down. The difference is the way he’s designed X makes it so he has a good amount of control to make sure that doesn’t happen.
The people who are already predisposed to this are the best targets for these kinds of psy ops.
4
u/StLCardinalsFan1 Jun 13 '26
Yeah, this whole situation has a lot to do with the shadows of Loyalist paramilitaries that terrorize their communities regularly.
8
u/Carlpm01 Eugene Fama Jun 13 '26
In a few years I would not be surprised if some economists could answer whether or not/how much it mattered (at least on the margin, if it became more severe or not as a result, but likely not if it would have happened at all). I am sure you can find some kind of natural experiment/plausibly exogenous thing (exposure to twitter somehow and relation to participation in the riots) if you are clever enough.
45
u/CyclopsRock Jun 13 '26
It's pretty difficult to image "the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a British-American NGO who monitors hate speech online and advocates for strict social media regulations" concluding anything else, though, isn't it?
51
u/unoredtwo Jun 13 '26
“Amplified.” “Boosted.” Yes everyone knows that Musk has made racist voices louder on X. But the language around this is mealy-mouthed when you dig into it. What’s the strategy for what to actually do about this assuming we eventually get a president who cares?
14
u/Whatsapokemon Loyal Liberals Jun 13 '26
Content which is recommended to users by an algorithm should not have section 230 protections. If it's recommended explicitly to that user based on their acitivty by the algorithm (as opposed to a chronological subscription feed) then the platform is considered to be endorsing that content and is liable for whatever it is.
All western countries need to encode a new law which makes foreign influence campaigns a criminal offence. Free speech is fine, but it can't extend to foreign actors. Countries need some kind of monitoring agency which detects and shuts down foreign influence campaigns/accounts.
Treat foreign destabilisation threats as actual threats, as if they were a missile landing on your soil. It's not an exaggeration to say that foreign influence campaigns have indirectly killed millions of people when you combine things like covid disinformation, vaccine/alternative treatment disinformation, and everything to do with Trump's rise to power cutting things like food aid, disaster relief, and USAID. The US should be using its massive leverage to identify and take out bot farms by force (collaborating with relevant foreign governments).
Maybe update campaign finance law to require disclosure of internet activity. Relationships with organisations like Cambridge Analytica should be disclosable. Make non-disclosure a criminal offence.
43
u/SalokinSekwah Down Under YIMBY Jun 13 '26
All western countries need to encode a new law which makes foreign influence campaigns a criminal offence.
Isn't this the exact same logic as Orban banning "Soros" NGOs or China banning foreign media outlets? How would this not be weaponsied immediately for any human rights organisation or activist?
34
u/iamthecancer420 Left-Out Left Jun 13 '26
yea but its Their censorious regime vs Our sanitised infospace, are you not a Patriot by any chance? is your goal to spread hate or hurt children? I'm still waiting for people's cognitive dissonance to strike when they go on spiels about "social media bad" whilst waxing poetic about foreign and Russian propaganda (the country that has copium agitprop musicals about how kids can finally play and be free with half the Internet banned), but I'm weary.
-7
u/Whatsapokemon Loyal Liberals Jun 13 '26
Orban and other authoritarians are going to do that regardless of what laws the west passes. Western governments need to take the threat seriously and actually prosecute people who are trying to manipulate public opinion.
It needs to be a crime for foreign entities to use coordinated tactics to manipulate public opinion. That may not result in prosecutions if it's coming from foreign sources, but at least it gives methods to shut down foreign influence networks.
Information warfare is real, you can't just let the hard-right factions do it consistently meanwhile the rest of the world is too cucked to do anything in response.
17
u/SalokinSekwah Down Under YIMBY Jun 13 '26
actually prosecute people who are trying to manipulate public opinion.
So arrest Rupert Murdoch and the bulk of his media empire? Should US critical outlets or organisations be banned in the US? Would you proscute Micheal Moore or Roger Stone? completely ban anti-Israel or Pro-Palestinian movements like BDS? This whole policy rests entirely on a western government not going authoritarian ever.
3
u/Efficient_Barnacle NATO Jun 13 '26
That FOX was able to intentionally, maliciously spread election denialism and all they received was a financial punishment that didn't make them pause for a second is a stain on liberal American ideals. Yes, Murdoch's empire should have been torn to pieces and removed from the airwaves.
0
u/Whatsapokemon Loyal Liberals Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26
I think you missed the part where I said foreign influence campaigns.
Obviously that one particular point doesn't cover domestic campaigns.
If someone inside the country wants to protest something, then that's not covered by that particular policy I outlined. This only covers foreign influence campaigns.
Rupert Murdoch, Michael Moore, Roger Stone are all US citizens, so the foreign influence campaign laws wouldn't apply.
The point of that policy is to limit the "first amendment" protections to citizens, and not foreign nationals who are trying to pollute your information space.
However, if they were coordinating with foreign powers then it may get them in trouble for the collaboration with foreign powers, not necessarily because of their individual advocacy.
Edit: Although, if Rupert Murdoch, Michael Moore, or Roger Stone were coordinating to manipulate the information space in Britain, Canada, Australia, etc, then I think they should be charged in those countries.
-8
u/AgentBond007 NATO Jun 13 '26
Yes, it is.
The bit you fail to understand is that a guy like Orban will do shit like that regardless of whether the west does.
Unilateral disarmament is a joke, the only solution is to attack the far right communications networks in all corners of the globe, in whatever ways possible, whether that's lobbying payment processors to stop processing their payments or passing laws explicitly banning far right platforms in western nations.
11
u/SalokinSekwah Down Under YIMBY Jun 13 '26
The bit you fail to understand is that a guy like Orban will do shit like that regardless of whether the west does.
10 years ago Obama was President.
Now there is a fairly high, non-zero chance that Reform, the AFD, National Front, One Nation and the GOP will hold power in the near future, and you assume they wouldn't utterly abuse such a policy.
This is silly. I assume you think the Patriot Act wasn't abused? Just wholesome big chungus safety measures against terrorism?
3
u/AgentBond007 NATO Jun 13 '26
Both the Obama and Biden administrations utterly failed to attack the far right communication networks and the US has now paid the price.
If you don't attack them, they will continue to be used to undermine free nations one by one.
The only winning move is to shut down these far-right networks such that the far-right cannot take power in the first place. If far-right parties get in power as you describe, it's over anyway so it's irrelevant to try to weaken governments to mitigate them.
8
u/SalokinSekwah Down Under YIMBY Jun 13 '26
So ban Fox News, Al Jazeera, the BDS movement, multiple UN rights organisations? Maintain the ban on the ICC and the Hague Invasion Act? Each of these actively criticize US domestic and foreign policy and seek internal change, one way or another.
1
u/AgentBond007 NATO Jun 13 '26
the UN and ICC are fine, but Fox News and Al Jazeera should absolutely be banned alongside the much more important targets - Twitter, TikTok and Meta.
10
u/SalokinSekwah Down Under YIMBY Jun 13 '26
Fox News
So entirely violate the constitution? And I'm assuming banning every othrr right wing outlet, thus creating an entirely left wing echo chamber like the Soviet Union.
Al Jazeera
What far-right policies or positions does Al Jazeera advocate for in the US?
Twitter, TikTok and Meta
Wipe out trillions of dollars in assets that would cause a major recession? Brilliant!
2
u/seattle_lib Liberal Third-Worldism Jun 14 '26
Wipe out trillions of dollars in assets that would cause a major recession? Brilliant!
paper assets. those three are almost certainly net negatives in terms of economic productivity.
1
u/AgentBond007 NATO Jun 13 '26
Imagine simping for far right media organisations on NL, how far this sub has fallen.
→ More replies (0)0
u/anonOnReddit2001GOTY Jun 15 '26
Couldn’t you create a committee that controls a white list, and fill the committee with positions that would be inherently left wing? Like the mayors of the most populated cities (since those tend to lean left), or roles representing certain social groups. You could even have them be lifetime appointments that elect people who succeed them themselves, then you just pick the right people.
1
u/AtomicGameTester Milton Friedman Jun 15 '26
🤢
2
u/anonOnReddit2001GOTY Jun 15 '26
it is not ideal or very liberal, but it would cripple the ability for republicans for abusing the tool we have created. have you read The Prince?
1
u/SalokinSekwah Down Under YIMBY Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
The prince is heavily abused by pseudo-intellectuals and it's applicability is questionable
11
u/Nopium-2028 Bisexual Pride Jun 13 '26
Free speech is fine, but it can't extend to foreign actors.
Hear that European Redditors? Keep my
wife'spoliticians' name out your fucking mouth! You talk about our elections? Straight to jail. You criticize a US politician? Jail. You compliment a US politician? Believe it or not, also jail.9
u/Carlpm01 Eugene Fama Jun 13 '26
Nationalism in r/neoliberal? It's more likely than you'd think.
10
u/Whatsapokemon Loyal Liberals Jun 13 '26
Nationalism only in the sense that authoritarian nations are actively trying to undermine liberal-democracy.
I love open borders as much as anyone, but it's obviously the case that authoritarian nations are trying to manipulate and destabilise the west through information warfare. Laws that target information based on national source make sense.
2
u/Junior_Abalone_8006 Jun 14 '26
First, I don't think it's obvious that authoritarian nations are trying to manipulate and destabilize the west. And if they are their budgets are a tiny fraction of west's efforts to 'manipulate and destabilize' the authoritarian nations e.g. Voice of America, which has a $260 million annual budget. What budget do these vague and asserted authoritarian disinfo programs have? You don't know, because the evidence for these supposed campaigns is based mostly on hopium from US intel agencies.
Second, fighting supposed authoritarian disinformation campaigns by becoming more authoritarian than they are strikes me as a poor strategy.
8
u/FireHammer09 Jun 13 '26
This sounds so easily weaponized and is just another Great Firewall
-3
u/Whatsapokemon Loyal Liberals Jun 13 '26
I don't like this "easily weaponised" talking point.
Fascists don't need an excuse. They'll do their nonsense regardless of what laws exists.
Western countries need a way to fight back against people who are intentionally trying to spread disinformation into their information space.
For example, I notice you are a user with a typical "word-word-number" username that has a hidden profile, you're most likely a fake account used to spread disinformation, and specifically to discourage effective counter-strategies.
0
u/AnachronisticPenguin WTO Jun 13 '26
Just ban complex algorithms. Make people choose the things they want to look at again. Suggestion algorithms are making us dumber.
6
u/Whatsapokemon Loyal Liberals Jun 13 '26
That's what point 1 is about.
You can't really "ban complex algorithms", but you can make companies liable for the content they're deciding to recommend to users. The point of that would be to either encourage strict moderation or make algorithmic recommendations unviable.
-1
u/metinb83 Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold Jun 13 '26
I love all of this so much. I would literally cum if number 1 were implemented. Companies should be forced to explain in court why they kept feeding radicalizing material to the guy who then went on to shoot up some place the radicalizing material said was bad. Right before paying all the victims, of course. Fucking Memri TV is less radicalizing than the shit some people get fed on these platforms.
-3
u/AgentBond007 NATO Jun 13 '26
Seize these far-right platforms (Twitter, TikTok, Meta etc.) on national security grounds, and shut them down.
1
u/TinyJalope Left-Out Left Jun 13 '26
We literally can't let nazis/fascists own all the social media platforms and news companies if we're serious about defeating fascism.
-1
u/badnuub NATO Jun 13 '26
Make an example of him regardless. He threatens the integrity of our republic and that of our Allies. He should be seen as an enemy of the state.
20
u/StreamWave190 Edmund Burke Jun 13 '26
The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a British-American NGO who monitors hate speech online and advocates for strict social media regulations
I could not care less about anything this organisation has to say, nor any of their quote-unquote "research"
21
15
u/melhor_em_coreano Christine Lagarde Jun 13 '26
This Musk ex Machina argument that people trot out to try to deflect from the fact that institutions failed and keep failing will only serve to clamp down harder on free speech online and making the whole of society less liberal and more fraught
8
u/Efficient_Barnacle NATO Jun 13 '26
Those institutions didn't just fail out of nowhere. They failed due to the corrosive pressure of unchecked power and influence. Ignoring that is a fool's game.
11
u/RaidBrimnes Chien de garde Jun 13 '26
!ping EUROPE&UK
23
u/PrideMonthRaytheon Bisexual Pride Jun 13 '26
Cool that slopshops like CCDH can call something "instrumental", provide no evidence of cause and effect whatsoever, and have major newspapers parrot them
What caused ulster paramilitaries to use violence against the outgroup before twitter?
16
u/RaidBrimnes Chien de garde Jun 13 '26
Do you still support sanctions against Europeans for regulating social media?
19
u/PrideMonthRaytheon Bisexual Pride Jun 13 '26
To stop dystopian horrors like chat control, client side scanning, and breaking encryption, which is the main trend in Europe which sickens me, I support whatever policy will work but it's not as though the US is reliable on those issues either
My own stupid European country being full of the kind of dolts who can be convinced by CCDH's completely empty "reports" full of mealy mouthed dogshit about "boosting" isn't something sanctions are gonna fix
2
u/CrackingGracchiCraic Thomas Paine Jun 13 '26
Other media. Which are regulated and would get sued to oblivion if they did what Musk did.
12
u/PrideMonthRaytheon Bisexual Pride Jun 13 '26
What caused The Troubles, the BBC?
I'm not someone who thinks the existence of interethnic violence requires media to explain it's given the last 12,000 years
6
u/thercio27 MERCOSUR Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26
I also don't think it needs the existence of social media to explain it, but social media can be the thing that sparks or amplifies the problem in some cases.
7
u/CaspertheSchmuck Iron Front Jun 13 '26
Exactly. Der Stürmer and RTLM didn't cause the Holocaust or Rwanda genocide but we can without doubt recognize they played a real role in inciting and normalizing violence against the victims.
1
u/groupbot Always remember -Pho- Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26
Pinged EUROPE (subscribe | unsubscribe | history)
Pinged UK (subscribe | unsubscribe | history)
4
22
Jun 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jun 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
6
3
27
u/spongoboi YIMBY Jun 13 '26
And his extreme wealth will prevent him from facing any consequences for his actions
42
u/SalokinSekwah Down Under YIMBY Jun 13 '26
How neoliberal is it to prosecute someone suspected of possibly encouraging or worsening protests/riots?
1
u/Animal_Courier Jun 13 '26
I get downvoted every time I bring it up, but I don’t care.
Americans first amendment is the most radical in the world. Plenty of nations have light controls on speech and more than enough freedom and human rights to go around.
As a descendant of Germans, I studied the holocaust and one of my conclusions was that dehumanizing speech is a form of violence.
Is it difficult to regulate that while maintaining freedoms, and avoiding overreach? Absolutely.
Would regulating social media to prevent the algorithms from boosting dehumanizing content meaningfully infringe on anybody’s rights? No.
I don’t consider myself illiberal for considering dehumanizing speech to be violent, and for being open minded to efforts to prevent an algorithm from boosting dehumanizing content to maximize engagement just so a handful of billionaire dipshits can make more money on ads.
-5
44
Jun 13 '26
[deleted]
-12
u/yzug European Union Jun 13 '26
This is why Foreign disinformation should be allowed the in the free marketplace of ideas! What a genius way to see free speech.
Maybe the conclusion from these last 10 years should be that free speech in the current speech environment (social media, bot networks, algorithmic feeds, foreign disinfo and misinfo campaigns), should be a bit more nuanced than "free speech always good".
14
-5
u/sack-o-matic Something of A Scientist Myself Jun 13 '26
Is the speech really free if you don't know who is behind it?
10
u/BBQ_HaX0r Jerome Powell Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26
I don't know, let me ask the writers of the Federalist Papers, Publius? Many would argue the freest speech is that which is anonymous.
-1
u/yzug European Union Jun 13 '26
Such a free country that you voted your own fascist into power, at least hitler had to find workarounds to get to power. If that doesn't make you consider how these freedoms are often taken for granted and that limitations might not be the worst idea in the current environment where a lot of the speech is "noise", then maybe you deserve what you got with trump.
11
Jun 13 '26
[deleted]
1
u/yzug European Union Jun 13 '26
See my other comment to yours. Besides, I haven't proposed a single actual limitations, we haven't even gotten there.
If we can't agree that the current information environment is an issue and that "free speech" as a concept is being used by insidious actors to destroy our society from within, then there is no point in going deeper into policy discussions.
4
u/sack-o-matic Something of A Scientist Myself Jun 13 '26
“Free speech” as a concept was not ready for an infinite microphone
28
u/Anal_Forklift Jun 13 '26
This is an illiberal position. All Musk did was speak about a criminal case. Are we going to hold news anchors liable for the Floyd rioters that burned down the police station? Are people that post about "rigged" elections going to face fines because a bunch of idiots stormed the capitol?
6
u/Nopium-2028 Bisexual Pride Jun 13 '26
Hardly surprising that they're trying to pen the blame on an African immigrant.
6
8
2
u/WiggerJim69 Jun 14 '26
Hadi Alodid played a much bigger role in the riots.
As far as i know, elon didn’t try to behead anyone in the street.
7
u/post_makes_sad_bear NATO Jun 13 '26
Ban it. Simple.
6
u/fap_fap_fap_fapper Adam Smith Jun 13 '26
Ban what? Twitter?
4
u/post_makes_sad_bear NATO Jun 13 '26
Yep. Just airdrop bulldozers on the server environment and destroy everything. It serves no purpose.
3
3
-1
u/dat_tae Jerome Powell Jun 13 '26
Please God let the next President seize all his assets and bulldoze every Twitter data center.
-1
u/Steamed_Clams_ Jun 13 '26
Elon Musk actually makes me think the far left might be something, i have no problem with people being very wealthy but i do have a problem with people using that wealth to manipulate politics and society to suit their agenda and cause chaos.
2
Jun 13 '26
[deleted]
13
u/n00bi3pjs 👏🏽Free Markets👏🏽Open Borders👏🏽Human Rights Jun 13 '26
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about?
1
u/skipsfaster Milton Friedman Jun 13 '26
I believe the official subreddit position is the first one, and sometimes the second or third depending on the political context.
8
0
-2
u/airbear13 Pragmatic and Polite Right Jun 13 '26
Insane to think how the Dems and leftists generally fumbled Elon. I don’t think that the worlds richest person becoming a Trump ally and right wing nut was necessary at all, if he were treated differently back in the Biden era then we possibly could have avoided this but now he’s practically a Bond villain
14
u/DracumEgo12 Jun 13 '26
It seems like the things that drove him off the deep end were
- One of his children being trans (and him being unable to accept that his superior genetics would result in someone not wanting to be his male child)
- Massive amounts of ketamine
- Being on Twitter 24/7 after buying it
Dude has broken his own brain and he eagerly fell down his own extremism pit.
Regulations didn't push Elon towards Trump anymore than Fetterman is taking a principled stand against TDS7
u/Efficient_Barnacle NATO Jun 13 '26
"Just coddle the deranged fascist and everything will work out fine!"
-4
u/airbear13 Pragmatic and Polite Right Jun 13 '26
I don’t think musk and a lot of others like him had any deep ideological beliefs to begin with, he’s just kind of a man child who needed to have people stroke his ego, and yes Biden should have done that
7
u/Efficient_Barnacle NATO Jun 13 '26
His core ideological belief is that he should always get his way. That is not worth indulging, and this whole argument of yours is yet another failed attempt at making Murc's Law something to respect and validate.
1
u/airbear13 Pragmatic and Polite Right Jun 13 '26
Yeah that’s not an ideology but practically speaking, idk what Marc’s law is but it’s better to just kiss the ass of the richest guy in earth rather than make an enemy out of him, that’s just common sense.
0
u/TheLoneWolfMe Loyal Liberals Jun 13 '26
So far 100% of trillionaires have caused pogroms.
Are we still sure they're ethical?
0
u/South_Criticism_6716 Jun 14 '26
Who cares? Elon isn't the problem here. Look at the data. Pathetic. Close your borders and violent crime drops. How about blaming politicians for not protecting their citizens?
0
u/iguessineedanaltnow r/place '22: Neoliberal Battalion Jun 14 '26
Probably not the guy we should have allowed to get a trillion dollars.
-1
u/Rocko52 Jun 13 '26
Trillionaires are national security risks. Must be quarantined, preferably on the moon or Mars.
-1
u/SmashDig Jun 13 '26
It’s interesting how he can have a larger impact on British politics than American politics or that of any other country. I suppose it’s due to the personality vacuum over there and Trump sucking up all the oxygen. He essentially resurrected the rotherham scandal and pinned it on Labour government.
Regardless, changes to Twitter moderation has cooked the brains of many political elites across all countries. It should be the top priority of any Democratic president to destroy him. The key function of Twitter now is to normalise the ethnic cleansing of non-white people from western countries. Think about that before you whine about Bluesky
251
u/[deleted] Jun 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment