Not for the first time, a stark contrast played out this week. While the BBC and mainstream broadcasters were tiptoeing around showing the footage of the Belfast knife attack, not televising the most graphic part of the video and choosing the words of their commentary carefully, social media had no such qualms.
Elon Musk jumped into action on his own X platform, posting the footage and publishing a list of UK locations for mass protests and telling his followers – he has 240 million worldwide – that “only by protesting REPEATEDLY and LOUDLY will there be any change!!” He reposted the claim of Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin that the cause was “a deliberate policy of mass uncontrolled immigration & open borders”. The far-right activist Tommy Robinson joined in, also on social media, calling for direct action.
The leader of Restore UK, Rupert Lowe, who is backed by Musk, pledged on YouTube that his party would begin mass deportations and reintroduce the death penalty to prevent attacks committed by “barbarians”. WhatsApp messages from anonymous accounts quickly circulated, calling for men aged 18 and over in Northern Ireland to “be prepared to fight or be arrested”.
Cue nightly shocking scenes in Belfast as masked men drove families out of their homes and set them ablaze.
In response to the pogrom, politicians and commentators lined up to condemn Musk for interfering in British politics. Tech secretary Liz Kendall said the government will legislate to reduce the time social media platforms have to remove illegal content. Where did Kendall publish her message? On Musk’s X.
The end of the week saw the stock market flotation of Musk’s Space X combined spaceflight, AI and tech group. It is worth $1.75 trillion, making Musk the world’s first trillionaire.
As the rioters were donning their face masks and hurling their petrol bombs, at a business dinner in London, a Labour tech policy expert said how much he was looking forward to the forthcoming United Nations summit on AI governance.
It led to some bemused looks among those listening as they did a double, make that a triple, take. First, the reminder, amid the US-Israel war with Iran, that the UN still existed. Second, that this is the first ever such UN gathering, despite the technology having been in existence and making huge inroads for several years. Third, it’s impossible to conceive of anything meaningful occurring or being agreed without the cooperation of the tech superpowers, the US and China, and it is hard to see those two enthusiastically participating.
Actually, make it a fourth, which is that the AI/tech corporate behemoths are themselves wealthier than many of the member countries of the UN. Inevitably, that means they are able to lobby, litigate and threaten to disinvest and remove their financial patronage at will.
That brings into sharp relief another recurring juxtaposition, which is the one of several nations, Britain included, kowtowing to them, anxiously seeking their financial beneficence and business, doing everything they can to make them feel welcome, while at the same time, policymakers struggle to bring them into line – the government’s agonising over a social media ban for under-16s being another illustration.
Having seen graphically how bad it can get – and there is the likelihood of further unrest and flash mob incidents, such as the crowds invading stores and shelves, all organised via social media in the summer months ahead – we’ve reached a point, surely, where looking both ways must stop. The companies’ dismissiveness shown over Belfast and the terror the posts and videos provoked could, and should, tell us all we need to know.
We have had such instances before, of online abuse and hounding, ruining lives and even leading to suicide; publication of harmful, illicit content; promotion of otherwise banned substances and products; and much more. There has to be a time when society says enough and where social media is concerned, that moment is now.
Warning X not to be used to stir up hatred and incite violence, as the Ofcom regulator did, when X’s owner was himself posting and sharing inflammatory posts from the likes of Goodwin and Robinson, felt lame, and only served to highlight the yawning gap in power between the social networks and the authorities.
Ofcom and ministers do have the ability to clamp down. They can act decisively and firmly – something that so far, they have been markedly reluctant to do. They have the ability to do so in a hurry – again, not something they are known for. The tech giants move at pace; governments, this one, has to change its habits and do the same.
If it necessitates being subjected to threats from them, so be it. They may see them through and disinvest. That is the risk we bear. Equally, it might, just might, bring them to their senses and realise where they are taking us and, by extension, themselves. The bully rarely likes it when the bullied fight back.
The government may wish to attract their favour and be reluctant to lose it, certainly where the future development of AI is concerned, but the damage to the greater country, to society at large, far outweighs whatever they are putting in. By the way, too, those deals rarely turn out to be what they appear – digging down into the detail frequently yields a level of commitment that does not match the headline number.
Loading ads...
If it means upsetting Elon and his tech brethren, so be it. Currently, Britain – and other countries, but it is Britain that should concern us and our government – is being played. It is no use waiting for the firms to self-police – we’ve seen that previously as well, to minimal effect – or for the UN to get its act together. For Britain, this week ought to mark the end.
لقراءة المقال بالكامل، يرجى الضغط على زر "إقرأ على الموقع الرسمي" أدناه
اقرأ أيضاً
