他們因在騷亂期間發文而被捕——這會改變什麼嗎？

In the summer of 2023, two individuals, Tyler Kay and Jordan Parlour, faced serious legal consequences for their actions on social media during a period of unrest in the UK. Tyler, aged 26, was sentenced to 38 months in prison, while Jordan, 28, received a 20-month sentence. Both were found guilty of inciting racial hatred through their online posts during the riots that erupted in August. This situation marked a pivotal moment in which individuals began to confront the real-life repercussions of their online behavior. Prime Minister Keir Starmer emphasized that social media platforms bear a significant responsibility in combating misinformation. In total, over 30 individuals were arrested for their social media activity, with at least 17 facing charges. However, some individuals investigated were not charged, as their posts did not meet the legal threshold for criminality. Despite this, many posts that did not cross the line into illegality still had tangible consequences in the real world. This raises questions about accountability for those who made harmful posts, as well as for the social media companies that often prioritize engagement over user safety. Elon Musk, the owner of X, publicly criticized the UK authorities for their handling of the riots. Initially, it seemed that this incident could lead to significant changes in the online landscape, but uncertainty remains about whether any lasting changes will occur. To better understand the role of social media in this context, we can examine the cases of a father in Pakistan and a businesswoman from Chester. A pseudo-news website called Channel3Now shared a false name of a 17-year-old charged with the murders of three girls in Southport. This misinformation was widely circulated, leading to increased anger and violence. Bernadette Spofforth, a 55-year-old businesswoman from Chester with a substantial following on X, also shared this false name and made incorrect claims about the teenager being an asylum seeker. These misleading posts contributed to the riots, which included attacks on mosques and asylum seekers. My investigation revealed that Channel3Now was linked to a man named Farhan Asif in Pakistan, as well as other individuals. The website appeared to be a commercial venture aimed at increasing views and generating advertising revenue. When I spoke to the individuals involved, they claimed that the publication of the false name was an error and not intentional. Bernadette Spofforth stated that she deleted her post as soon as she realized it was false, and she denied having fabricated the name. Following these events, both Farhan and Bernadette were arrested for their posts, but the charges were ultimately dropped due to insufficient evidence. Bernadette has since returned to posting on X, claiming to be an advocate for freedom of expression. She argues that the notion that a single tweet could have sparked the riots is simply untrue. While it is essential to hold individuals accountable for their online actions, it is equally important to consider the broader implications of how social media platforms operate. Decisions made by Elon Musk, such as allowing users to purchase blue verification ticks for greater visibility, have influenced how posts are perceived. Matt Jukes, the head of counter-terror policing in the UK, stated that X played a significant role in amplifying posts that contributed to the summer's unrest. He noted that there were approximately 1,200 referrals of harmful posts related to the riots, with a disproportionate number coming from X compared to other platforms like TikTok. Addressing illegal content is relatively straightforward, but tackling posts that fall into the category of 'lawful but awful' presents a more complex challenge. The police have flagged numerous posts to social media platforms, but some, like Telegram, have been difficult to engage with. Elon Musk has accused law enforcement of attempting to regulate opinions, but Matt Jukes clarified that arrests were made only in cases where individuals were inciting violence. While some individuals have faced consequences for their actions, the major companies that profit from the dissemination of harmful content have largely escaped accountability. Jukes advocates for the Online Safety Act, set to take effect in 2025, to be strengthened to better address content that is legal but still poses risks. Telegram has stated that they do not tolerate calls for violence and remove harmful content when discovered. However, they also acknowledged that managing content is challenging due to their large user base. I reached out to X for comments, but they did not respond to my inquiries. They continue to assert that their priority is to protect users' voices. Many investigations reveal that the design of social media platforms and their algorithms often promote content that elicits strong reactions, regardless of the potential harm. During the riots, these algorithms amplified misinformation and hate, drawing in new users and incentivizing the sharing of controversial content for likes and views. Changing this dynamic would require companies to alter their business models, which presents a significant challenge for regulators and policymakers.