Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Paul's avatar

When I was a graduate student in Manchester in the mid nineties I shared a lab with a chap from Pakistan. Lovely fella, bit naive, but really friendly. (Took me to this really excellent place for Indian food one time. I also recall he was totally shocked when George Michael came out - couldn’t believe such a masculine man would be gay).

Anyway he was friends with a nasty piece of work, British born Pakistani (Hamas supporter irc) who took him to the university Islamic society after Friday prayers….

Guy comes back ranting and raving about sanctions on Iraq and just really really angry with everyone…

I’m guessing if he’d stayed in academia in Pakistan he wouldn’t have been exposed to that kind of extremism.

Marnie Riches's avatar

It's not just a case of removing the platforms of dangerous, hate-spreading individuals, however. The ocean of disinformation and outright lies on social media is a real problem. In pre-internet times, broadcasters would have broadcasting standards, which meant that unfounded nonsense conspiracy theories, such as those we currently see spread about Jews and Israel, would have never been broadcast in the first place. Now, the internet is the Wild West, the BBC has been found to falsify stories and the Guardian frequently parrots disinformation. X at least has community notes, but rarely takes down demonstrably untrue or illegal posts. But Instagram, Bluesky, Facebook...all of them could be deploying sophisticated AI to test for AI-generated images, fake news and verifiably nonsense non-facts. When found, they should be taken down, because huge swathes of the public are gullible and susceptible to propaganda. Social media platform owners must take some responsibility for allowing the spread of Jew-hate, Hamas propaganda and contemporary blood libel. It wouldn't be censorship so much as the modern day equivalent of upholding broadcasting standards.

No posts

Ready for more?