One of the less edifying aspects of the recent public disorder and violence in British towns and cities has been a spiralling, combative discourse between the Government and Elon Musk, owner of social media platform X. The Texas-based billionaire is both a forceful advocate of free speech and a long-time internet provocateur, but ministers and their supporters have unwisely risen to his goading. As a result, the Government’s policy on regulation of internet content now looks hastily conceived, confused and worst of all, potentially toothless.
Musk waded into the issue of recent rioting, and its supposed root causes, almost two weeks ago. Having declared that ‘civil war is inevitable’ – a claim which now looks even more preposterous than it was when he first made it – the X boss focused his attacks on the Prime Minister, accusing him of allowing different communities to be policed inconsistently. He has taken up the catchy hashtag of #TwoTierKeir, which seems to have touched a very raw nerve in Downing Street.
There is a strong argument that the Government should have made no response at all to Musk’s sniping. Like any trouble-maker, he needs and thrives on a response. The Labour Party has certainly been happy to oblige.
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, raised the flag of inadequate regulation of social media last week. He argued that ministers should act ‘very, very quickly’ to review the Online Safety Act 2023: ‘What the government should do very quickly is check if it is fit for purpose. I think it’s not fit for purpose’. He was implicitly supported by Nick Thomas-Symonds, a Cabinet Office minister, who told Sky News the next day that the government stood ready to make changes to the act ‘if necessary’, and indicated that he thought Khan’s criticism was ‘valid’.
Peter Kyle, who as Science, Innovation and Technology Secretary has responsibility for regulation of internet content, was interviewed for The Times. He was not slow to point the finger at technology companies for allowing misinformation to be spread which, he maintained, fueled the violence.
I have been clear that it is unacceptable that social media has provided a platform for this hate… when I spoke to the companies I was very clear that they also have a responsibility not to peddle the harm of those who seek to damage and divide our society.
When asked about the current provisions of the Online Safety Act, he admitted that it was ‘clearly a bit leaky at the moment’.
With a Downing Street spokesman adding that the Prime Minister ‘does agree that we’re going to need to look more broadly at social media after this disorder’, voters could have been forgiven for thinking that the stage was set for robust action from the Government and a more stringent regulatory regime for social media.
There are extensive and profound arguments on both sides of this issue, and the previous government dropped several proposed provisions from the Online Safety Act during its legislative scrutiny. In particular, it backed away from trying to prohibit content described as ‘legal but harmful’. Easy answers are in short supply.
Now, however, we learn that there is no pitched battle in prospect, no rush to the barricades. On Monday, the Prime Minister’s spokesman was asked if the Online Safety Act was under review. With the sound of crunching and grating change of gear off-stage, the response was: ‘No, I don’t think that’s quite right’. In fact, the Government’s priority was ‘getting the existing act implemented quickly and effectively’, and Keir Starmer had no intention of being drawn into a ‘back and forth’ with Elon Musk.
This is simply shambolic. There are very good reasons not to pursue stricter regulation of social media, not least on the grounds of free speech, and reacting in general legislative terms to a specific event or set of incidents like the recent rioting is often a bad idea. Even worse, though, is to start a drumbeat of warnings, through ministers and others, that the existing rules need to be revised and tightened, and then suddenly to step back from such an idea and deny that you were ever thinking in those terms.
The Government already has a track record of thinking that saying something is as effective as doing something – impressive after less than six weeks in office. Just look at its utterly empty joint defence declaration with Germany, or Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s endless announcements of content-free ‘resets’ in relations with other countries.
The approach to the Online Safety Act and social media regulation goes a stage further. There seems to have been a feeling in Downing Street that by issuing stern words and sombre warnings, the Government had achieved something. In fact, it has done the opposite: anyone looking at its approach could reasonably conclude that no action is likely, and, more damagingly, that ministers have no concrete idea of what they would do anyway.
In many ways, the Government is now in a worse position than it was a fortnight ago. It looks confused, foolish and potentially powerless. This will not have escaped the attention of Elon Musk.
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
