Freedom of the press

Social media Bluesky gains popularity in UK after Musk’s riot remarks

Bluesky, a social media platform, has reported a significant increase in signups in the United Kingdom recently as users look for alternatives to Elon Musk’s X. The increase follows Musk’s controversial remarks on ongoing riots in the UK, which have driven users, including several Members of Parliament, to explore other platforms. The company announced that it had experienced a 60% rise in activity from UK accounts.

Musk has faced criticism for inflaming tensions after riots in Britain were sparked by misinformation surrounding the murder of three girls in northern England. The Tesla CEO allegedly used X to disseminate misleading information to his vast audience, including a post claiming that civil war in Britain was ‘inevitable.’ The case has prompted Prime Minister Keir Starmer to respond and increased calls for the government to accelerate the implementation of online content regulations.

Bluesky highlighted that the UK had the most signups of any country for five of the last seven days. Once supported by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, the platform is among the many apps vying to replace Twitter after Musk’s turbulent takeover in late 2022.

As of July, Bluesky’s monthly active user base was approximately 688,568, which is small compared to X’s 76.9 million users, according to Similarweb, a digital market intelligence firm. Despite its smaller size, the recent surge in UK signups to Bluesky appears to be a growing interest in alternative social media platforms.

Meta wins appeal against anti-vaccine group

Meta Platforms (META.O) has successfully defended against an appeal by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), an anti-vaccine group founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., challenging Meta’s censorship of Facebook posts containing vaccine misinformation. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California, ruled that CHD did not prove Meta was influenced or coerced by federal officials to suppress anti-vaccine content, upholding a June 2021 decision by US District Judge Susan Illston.

CHD sued Meta in 2020, claiming its constitutional rights were violated when Meta flagged ‘vaccine misinformation’ as false and restricted the group’s advertising on Facebook. Meta argued its actions were part of efforts to curb the spread of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, including prohibiting claims that the vaccines are ineffective and directing users to authoritative sources like the World Health Organisation for accurate information.

Circuit Judge Eric Miller, appointed by former President Donald Trump, emphasised that Meta, as a private company, has the right under the First Amendment to regulate content on its platform and promote its views on vaccine safety and efficacy, even if they align with the government’s stance. The court also dismissed claims against the Poynter Institute and Science Feedback, which help Meta evaluate content accuracy.

Children’s Health Defense expressed disappointment with the ruling and is considering further legal actions. Circuit Judge Daniel Collins dissented partially, suggesting that CHD could seek an injunction on free speech claims. However, he agreed other claims, such as those for monetary damages, should be dismissed. The decision underscores the ongoing debate around content moderation and free speech in the digital age.

UK considers revising Online Safety Act amid riots

The British government is considering revisions to the Online Safety Act in response to a recent wave of racist riots allegedly fueled by misinformation spread online. The act, passed in October but not yet enforced, currently allows the government to fine social media companies up to 10% of their global turnover if they fail to remove illegal content, such as incitements to violence or hate speech. However, proposed changes could extend these penalties to platforms that permit ‘legal but harmful’ content, like misinformation, to thrive.

Britain’s Labour government inherited the act from the Conservatives, who had spent considerable time adjusting the bill to balance free speech with the need to curb online harms. A recent YouGov poll found that 66% of adults believe social media companies should be held accountable for posts inciting criminal behaviour, and 70% feel these companies are not sufficiently regulated. Additionally, 71% of respondents criticised social media platforms for not doing enough to combat misinformation during the riots.

In response to these concerns, Cabinet Office Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds announced that the government is prepared to revisit the act’s framework to ensure its effectiveness. London Mayor Sadiq Khan also voiced his belief that the law is not ‘fit for purpose’ and called for urgent amendments in light of the recent unrest.

Why does it matter?

The riots, which spread across Britain last week, were triggered by false online claims that the perpetrator of a 29 July knife attack, which killed three young girls, was a Muslim migrant. As tensions escalated, X owner Elon Musk contributed to the chaos by sharing misleading information with his large following, including a statement suggesting that civil war in Britain was ‘inevitable.’ Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson condemned these comments, stating there was ‘no justification’ for such rhetoric.

X faces scrutiny for hosting extremist content

Concerns are mounting over content shared by the Palestinian militant group Hamas on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk. The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), which includes major companies like Facebook, Microsoft, and YouTube, is reportedly worried about X’s continued membership and position on its board, fearing it undermines the group’s credibility.

The Sunday Times reported that X has become the most accessible platform to find Hamas propaganda videos, along with content from other UK-proscribed terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Researchers were able to locate such videos within minutes on X.

Why does it matter?

These concerns come as X faces criticism for reducing its content moderation capabilities. The GIFCT’s independent advisory committee expressed alarm in its 2023 report, citing significant reductions in online trust and safety measures on specific platforms, implicitly pointing to X.

Elon Musk’s approach to turning X into a ‘free speech’ platform has included reinstating previously banned extremists, allowing paid verification, and cutting much of the moderation team. The shift has raised fears about X’s ability to manage extremist content effectively. Despite being a founding member of GIFCT, X still needs to meet its financial obligations.

Additionally, the criticism Musk faced in Great Britain indicates the complex and currently unsolvable policy governance question: whether to save the freedom of speech or scrutinise in addition the big tech social media owners and focus on community safety?

Great Britain scenario..

Elon Musk faced criticism for his social media posts, which many believe have fueled ongoing riots in Britain. Musk shared riot footage and made controversial statements, including predicting a civil war and criticizing Prime Minister Keir Starmer for focusing on speech policing instead of community safety. The unrest was sparked by false online claims that a Taylor Swift-themed dance class stabbing involved an illegal Muslim immigrant, though the suspect is actually a 17-year-old from Cardiff with Rwandan Christian roots. The misinformation allegedly led to anti-immigrant protests and civil disorder across Britain, with violence targeting mosques, asylum seeker housing, and police. Prime Minister Starmer condemned social media companies, particularly X, for enabling the spread of violent disinformation. Government officials, including Technology Secretary Peter Kyle and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, have vowed action against tech platforms, though Britain’s Online Safety Act won’t be fully effective until next year. Meanwhile, the EU’s Digital Services Act, which Britain is no longer part of, is already in effect.

YouTube faces uncertain future in Russia

As Russia tightens its grip on independent media, YouTube remains a vital platform for free expression, particularly for opposition voices. However, this may only last for a while longer. Recent mass outages reported by Russian internet services signal a possible shift, with lawmakers blaming Google’s outdated infrastructure for the slowdowns—a claim Google disputes.

The video platform, which has served as a key outlet for dissenting opinions, faces potential blocking in Russia. With independent media largely banned, YouTube has become a crucial source of opposition content, such as the widely viewed video by the late Alexei Navalny accusing President Vladimir Putin of corruption.

Experts warn that banning YouTube could severely impact online freedom and disrupt Russia’s internet connectivity. The widespread use of VPNs to bypass restrictions could also strain the country’s internet infrastructure, further complicating the situation.

Why does it matter?

The Russian government has historically throttled internet traffic to silence dissent, but it now relies on a more sophisticated censorship system. Despite the growing pressure, YouTube remains accessible, likely due to fears of public backlash and the potential strain on Russia’s networks.

As Moscow encourages users to switch to domestic platforms like VK Video, the future of YouTube in Russia hangs in the balance. While some non-political content creators may migrate, opposition channels could struggle to maintain their reach if forced off YouTube.

NBCUniversal to showcase AI in Paris Olympics, Warner Bros Discovery cautious

The Paris Olympics will highlight the use of generative AI for American viewers, while European audiences will experience a more traditional approach. Comcast’s NBCUniversal plans to integrate AI into its US broadcast, including recreating the voice of a legendary sportscaster. Meanwhile, Warner Bros. Discovery’s sports division in Europe considers the technology too immature for roles like sports commentating.

Warner Bros. Discovery, which will stream the Games on its Max and discovery+ platforms across Europe, has tested AI for translating speech but found it lacks the emotion needed for thrilling sports moments. Scott Young, senior vice president at Warner Bros. Discovery Sports Europe, emphasised that AI struggles to capture the genuine excitement of live commentary. The difference in approaches reflects global media companies’ varied stances on AI technology, as France also plans to allow AI-powered surveillance during the Olympics, highlighting its broad application.

In the US, NBCUniversal will collaborate with Google and Team USA to enhance the viewing experience with AI, including AI-enhanced Google Map images of Olympic venues and AI-generated personalised daily briefings narrated by an AI recreation of Al Michaels’ voice. The Olympic Broadcasting Services is also using AI to produce quick highlights but remains cautious about deepfake risks. Additionally, extensive cybersecurity measures are being implemented to protect the Games from cyber threats, showcasing the crucial role of AI in ensuring safety and security.

As AI capabilities advance, European sports fans may soon experience similar technology. Warner Bros. Discovery anticipates significant AI integration by the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is already implementing AI for athlete safety and deploying AI tools to counter cyber threats at the 2024 Olympics, illustrating the growing influence of AI in sports.

Bangladesh faces fifth day without internet amid protests

Bangladesh remained without internet access for the fifth consecutive day as the government declared a public holiday on Monday. Authorities maintained strict control following a Supreme Court ruling that reduced a contentious quota system for government jobs, which had triggered violent protests. Despite an apparent calm, the nation witnessed military personnel patrolling the capital and other areas after a curfew with a shoot-on-sight order was imposed days earlier.

The protests, primarily led by students, erupted over a quota reserving 30% of government jobs for relatives of veterans from Bangladesh’s 1971 war of independence. Clashes between police and protesters resulted in over a hundred deaths, according to local newspapers, though official figures have not been released. In response to the Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the veterans’ quota to 5%, protesters have called for the restoration of internet services and the removal of security officials from university campuses.

Despite the court ruling, tensions in Bangladesh remain high. Protesters issued a 48-hour ultimatum for the government to end the digital crackdown and return the country to normalcy. The US Embassy in Dhaka described the situation as highly volatile, warning Americans to avoid large crowds and reconsider travel plans. The protests have presented a significant challenge to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government, highlighting ongoing political strife between her Awami League party and the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party.

Singapore blocks 95 accounts linked to exiled Chinese tycoon Guo Wengui

Singapore has ordered five social media platforms to block access to 95 accounts linked to exiled Chinese tycoon Guo Wengui. These accounts posted over 120 times from April 17 to May 10, alleging foreign interference in Singapore’s leadership transition. The Home Affairs Ministry stated that the posts suggested a foreign actor influenced the selection of Singapore’s new prime minister.

Singapore’s Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, enacted in October 2021, was used for the first time to address this issue. Guo Wengui, recently convicted in the US for fraud, has a history of opposing Beijing. Together with former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, he launched the New Federal State of China, aimed at overthrowing China’s Communist Party.

The ministry expressed concern that Guo’s network could spread false narratives detrimental to Singapore’s interests and sovereignty. Blocking these accounts was deemed necessary to prevent potential hostile information campaigns targeting Singapore.

Guo and his affiliated organisations have been known to push various Singapore-related narratives. The coordinated actions and previous attempts to use Singapore to advance their agenda highlighted their capability to undermine Singapore’s social cohesion and sovereignty.

Supreme Court delays ruling on state laws targeting social media

The US Supreme Court has deferred rulings on the constitutionality of laws from Florida and Texas aimed at regulating social media companies’ content moderation practices. The laws, challenged by industry groups including NetChoice and CCIA, sought to limit platforms like Meta Platforms, Google, and others from moderating content they deem objectionable. While the lower courts had mixed decisions—blocking Florida’s law and upholding Texas’—the Supreme Court unanimously decided these decisions didn’t fully address First Amendment concerns and sent them back for further review.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, questioned Texas’ law, suggesting it sought to impose state preferences on social media content moderation, which could violate the First Amendment. Central to the debate is whether states can compel platforms to host content against their editorial discretion, which companies argue is necessary to manage spam, bullying, extremism, and hate speech. Critics argue these laws protect free speech by preventing censorship of conservative viewpoints, a claim disputed by the Biden administration, which opposes the laws for potentially violating First Amendment protections.

Why does it matter?

At stake are laws that would restrict platforms with over 50 million users from censoring based on viewpoint (Texas) and limit content exclusion for political candidates or journalistic enterprises (Florida). Additionally, these laws require platforms to explain content moderation decisions, a requirement some argue burdens free speech rights.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to rule marks another chapter in the ongoing legal battle over digital free speech rights, following earlier decisions regarding officials’ social media interactions and misinformation policies.

New Zealand pushes bill for tech platforms to pay for news

New Zealand’s conservative coalition government plans to introduce a bill mandating digital technology platforms to pay media companies for news. The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, initially proposed by the previous Labour government, aims to support local media companies in generating revenue from the news they produce. Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith stated that the bill would be amended to align more closely with Australia’s similar digital bargaining law, which forces internet firms like Meta and Google to negotiate content supply deals with media outlets.

Meta criticised the bill, arguing that it overlooked how its platforms function and the value they provide to news outlets; Google did not immediately comment. However, the proposed legislation would grant the communications minister the power to decide which digital platforms are subject to the law, with an independent regulator overseeing its enforcement.

While the right-wing ACT New Zealand party does not support the bill, the opposition Labour Party has expressed conditional support, pending a review of the amendments. Labour spokesperson Willie Jackson voiced relief that the government is progressing with legislation to create a fairer media landscape for news companies operating online.