Police officers stand guard next to counter-protesters, on the day of a protest against illegal immigration, in Bolton, Britain, August 4, 2024. REUTERS/Belinda Jiao
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 8 (Bernama) — The ongoing riots taking place in various cities across the United Kingdom (UK) have landed social media platform owners being blamed for misinformation that has triggered violent clashes for the past weeks.
The flood of online misinformation has been identified as a key factor in aggravating the situation with the UK government pushing social media companies to take responsibility for the escalating violence.
The social media platforms being blamed included WhatsApp, Telegram and X (formerly known as Twitter), which the far-right groups have used.
Cooper said “social media companies need to take some responsibility” and that “police would be pursuing online criminality”, adding that this misinformation had encouraged violence.
In fact, The Mirror reported that the teenager’s father is a Christian and his mom, a housewife, “were struggling to make a go of things here’’ and that the “family was heavily involved with the local church.”
Rudakubana was, in fact, born in Cardiff, Wales, to parents who had emigrated from Rwanda, Africa.
Many of these people who had spread toxic misinformation, as well as sent announcements on meeting points, often shared this information in anonymity. One even used Facebook to inform his followers to attack a hotel housing migrants.
The far-right activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon posted continual commentary and videos of the rioting on X and repeatedly claimed it was caused by “mobs of Muslims’’ rather than far-right rioters.
In the name of freedom of expression, he can continue propagating such misinformation to fan the violence through these platforms.
The frustrations of the UK government are no different from those faced by Malaysia and other countries.
It is one thing to allow free-for-all expression because we fear governments would stop dissent if social media were too regulated, but as we debate over this, cyberbullies, scammers, online gaming casinos and sex predators are roaming freely.
Who protects the innocent, ordinary individuals when we are so caught up in wanting to protect politicians and critics in the name of civil society and freedom of expression?
The UK government has now called for a “longer-term debate about the wider legal framework’’ for tackling online misinformation.
Questions have now arisen over the effectiveness of the Online Safety Act, which became law in 2023, after years of wrangling, and is still being put into force.
According to the Financial Times, it was designed to protect users of social online services, including social media platforms.
“It created sweeping powers for UK media regulator, Ofcom, to police the tech giants for flouting the rules, including imposing hefty fines and criminal liability for named senior executives in the most serious breaches,” it said.
In Malaysia, it makes sense to register these tech companies because most of them have no operating offices or representatives here. The regional personnel, who are not high-ranking enough, would probably be in Singapore or Manila.
While they are called up for meetings with the Malaysian government, the reality is that their headquarters are in the United States or elsewhere.
They do not have to take any instructions from the government and when intimate and lewd pictures are posted online, appeals must be made to these operators by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission. It is up to their goodwill while the victims suffer.
Tory MP James Cleverly reportedly warned tech executives that it was “unacceptable for them to take the profits but not comply with their responsibilities’’ while Labour MP Josh Simons was reported as saying that “tech bosses can’t expect to wield power far exceeding that of any newspaper editor without bearing any responsibilities”.
The violence in the UK is a wake-up call as developing countries lack the clout to act against these social media companies, but when the UK voices its anger as a victim then we can see a more effective response.
