By Marianna Spring, disinformation and social media correspondent
This summer has brought into sharp focus the real-world consequences of what spreads on social media – and the disconnect, at times, between what breaks the law, and what breaks some social media sites’ rules.
X, formerly known as Twitter, has been under fire – because it was the place where disinformation and hate that fanned the flames of the riots spread rapidly. And there were accusations it allowed – and incentivised – these kinds of posts, something I investigated at the time.
Decisions made by X’s new owner Elon Musk, including about what kind of posts are allowed on the site, introducing paid-for blue ticks that offer users’ posts greater prominence and reinstating some accounts that had previously been banned, have all been scrutinised.
He has repeatedly reiterated his commitment to freedom of expression. He also has decided to directly wade into UK politics – and has continued to comment on the sentencing of some Brits for their posts online related to the riots.
This case is another example of where what’s allowed in the world of X is at odds with what’s allowed in the eyes of the law. It raises tricky questions for politicians and the UK’s regulator, Ofcom, looking to enforce a new Online Safety Act.
X hasn’t responded to the ‘s previous requests for comment – and says online it protects and defends the users’ voice.