Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva emphasised on Friday that Elon Musk must abide by the rulings of Brazil’s Supreme Court amid rising tensions that could see the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) shut down in the country. President Lula announced this after X failed to meet a court-imposed deadline to identify a legal representative in Brazil, a requirement under the country’s internet laws.
The dispute escalated when Musk labelled Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes a ‘dictator’ and accused President Lula of being the judge’s ‘lapdog.’ Lula responded by asserting that all foreign investors, regardless of wealth, are subject to Brazilian laws and the Constitution.
The potential shutdown of X could be enforced by ordering telecommunications companies to block the platform’s traffic. However, users could bypass the restriction using VPNs, allowing them to continue accessing the site.
In a related development, Brazil’s Supreme Court froze the local bank accounts of Musk’s satellite internet company, Starlink, reportedly due to the same issue of lacking a legal representative in the country. Musk responded by promising to keep providing Starlink’s services to remote areas of Brazil for free until the legal matter is resolved, stressing that many schools and hospitals depend on the service.
Despite the financial freeze, Musk also pledged continued support for the Brazilian military, which has warned that any disruption in Starlink’s services could negatively impact its operations.
It has not been that long since Elon Musk was hardly criticised by the British government for spreading extremist content and advocating for the freedom of speech on his platform. This freedom of speech has probably become a luxury few people can afford, especially on platforms whose owners are less committed to those principles while trying to comply with the requirements of governments worldwide. The British riots, where individuals were allegedly arrested for social media posts, further illustrate the complexity of regulating social media digital policies. While governments and like-minded people may argue that these actions are necessary to curb violent extremism and exacerbation of critical situations, others see them as a dangerous encroachment and undermining of free speech.
The line between expressing controversial opinions and inciting violence or allowing crime on social media platforms is often blurred, and the consequences of crossing it can be severe. However, let us look at a situation where someone is arrested for allegedly turning a blind eye to organised crime activities on his platform, as in the case of Telegram’s CEO.
Namely, Pavel Durov, Telegram’s founder and CEO, became another symbol of resistance against government control over digital communications alongside Elon Musk. His arrest in Paris on 25 August 2024 sparked a global debate on the fine line between freedom of speech and the responsibilities that come with running a platform that allows for uncensored, encrypted communication. French authorities allegedly detained Durov based on an arrest warrant related to his involvement in a preliminary investigation and his unwillingness to grant authorities access to his encrypted messaging app, which has over 1 billion users worldwide. The investigation concerns Telegram’s alleged role in enabling a wide range of crimes due to insufficient moderation and lack of cooperation with law enforcement. The charges against him—allegations of enabling criminal activities such as child exploitation, drug trafficking, terrorism, and fraud, as well as refusing to cooperate with authorities —are severe. However, they also raise critical questions about the extent to which a platform owner can or should be held accountable for the actions of its users.
In 2011, Durov said the Russian government asked him to delete the accounts of anti-government people on his social media platform. He refused. After the 2014 coup in Ukraine, Durov refused to provide the Russian government with information about users involved in the event. pic.twitter.com/hqnijdiBJ5
Durov’s journey from Russia to France highlights the complex interplay between tech entrepreneurship and state control. He first made his mark in Russia, founding VKontakte, a platform that quickly became a refuge for political dissenters. His refusal to comply with Kremlin demands to hand over user data and sell the platform eventually forced him out of the country in 2014. Meanwhile, Durov launched Telegram in 2013, a messaging app focused on privacy and encryption, which has since become a tool for those seeking to avoid government surveillance. However, his commitment to privacy has put him at odds with various governments, leading to a life of constant movement across borders to evade legal and political challenges.
In France, Durov’s initially promising relationship with the government soured over time. Invited by President Emmanuel Macron in 2018 to consider moving Telegram to Paris, Durov even accepted French citizenship in 2021. However, the French government’s growing concerns about Telegram’s role in facilitating illegal activities, from terrorism to drug trafficking, led to increased scrutiny. The tension as we already know, culminated in Durov’s recent detention, which is part of a broader investigation into whether platforms like Telegram enable online criminality.
Durov’s relationship with the United Arab Emirates adds another layer of complexity. After leaving Russia, Durov based Telegram in the UAE, where he was granted citizenship and received significant financial backing. However, the UAE’s restrictive political environment and stringent digital controls have made this partnership a delicate one, with Durov carefully navigating the country’s security concerns while maintaining Telegram’s operations.
Pavel Durov left Russia when the government tried to control his social media company, Telegram. But in the end, it wasn’t Putin who arrested him for allowing the public to exercise free speech. It was a western country, a Biden administration ally and enthusiastic NATO member,… https://t.co/F83E9GbNHC
The USA, too, has exerted pressure on Durov. Despite repeated attempts by US authorities to enlist his cooperation in controlling Telegram, Durov has steadfastly resisted, reinforcing his reputation as a staunch defender of digital freedom. He recently told to Tucker Carlson in an interview that the FBI approached a Telegram engineer, attempting to secretly hire him to install a backdoor that would allow US intelligence agencies to spy on users. However, his refusal to collaborate with the FBI has only heightened his standing as a symbol of resistance against governmental overreach in the digital realm.
With such an intriguing biography of his controversial tech entrepreneurship, Durov’s arrest indeed gives us reasons for speculation. At the same time, it seems not just a simple legal dispute but a symbol of the growing diplomatic and legal tensions between governments and tech platforms over control of cyberspaces. His journey from Russia to his current predicament in France highlights a broader issue: the universal challenge of balancing free expression with national security.
Accordingly, Telegram, based in Dubai and widely used across Russia and the former Soviet Union, has faced scrutiny for its role in disseminating unfiltered content, especially during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Durov, who left Russia in 2014 after refusing to comply with government demands, has consistently maintained that Telegram is a neutral platform committed to user privacy and free speech. Additionally, his multiple citizenships, including Russian (since the devolution in 1991, previously the Soviet Union from birth), Saint Kitts and Nevis (since 2013), French (since 2021), and UAE (since 2021), are only escalating tenseness between concerned governments pressing on French President Emmanuel Macron and asking for clarifications on the matter. Even Elon Musk confronted Emanuel Macron by responding directly to his post on X, claiming that ‘It would be helpful to the global public to understand more details about why he was arrested’, as he described it as an attack on free speech.
It would be helpful to the global public to understand more details about why he was arrested
Despite the unclear circumstances and vague official evidence justifying the arrest and court process, Durov will undoubtedly face the probe and confront the accusations under the prescribed laws concerning the case. Therefore, it would be preferable to look at the relevant laws and clarify which legal measures are coherent with the case.
The legal backdrop to Durov’s arrest is complex, involving both US and EU laws that govern digital platforms. However, Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act of 1996, often called the ‘twenty-six words that created the internet,’ is the governing law that should be consulted and under which, among others, this case would be conducted. The law, in its essence, protects online platforms from liability for user-generated content as long as they act in good faith to remove unlawful material. This legal shield has allowed platforms like Telegram to flourish, offering robust encryption and a promise of privacy that appeals to millions of users worldwide. However, this immunity is not absolute. Section 230 does not protect against federal criminal liability, which means that if Telegram is found to have knowingly allowed illegal activities to increase without taking adequate steps to curb them, Durov could indeed be held liable.
In the EU context, the recently implemented Digital Services Act (DSA) imposes stricter obligations on digital platforms, particularly those with significant user bases. Although Telegram, with its 41 million users in the EU, falls short of the ‘very large online platforms’ (VLOP) category that would subject it to the most stringent DSA requirements, it would probably still be obligated to act against illegal content. The DSA emphasises transparency, accountability, and cooperation with law enforcement—a framework that contrasts sharply with Telegram’s ethos of privacy and minimal interference.
True, Brazil is controlled by a tyrannical dictator masquerading as a judge https://t.co/kkPfNRrBOh
Similarly, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has been embroiled in controversies over its role in child exploitation, but especially in spreading harmful content, from political misinformation to hate speech. On the other hand, Zuckerberg’s recent confession in an official letter that, in 2021, the White House and other Biden administration officials exerted considerable pressure on Meta to suppress certain COVID-19-related content, including humour and satire, adds fuel to the fire concerning the abuse of legal measures to stifle freedom of speech and excessive content moderation by government officials. Nevertheless, both Musk and Zuckerberg have had to strike a balance between maintaining a platform that allows for open dialogue and complying with legal requirements to prevent the spread of harmful content.
When you say you are committed to freedom of expression, you are lying. We have a letter from France that proves this, without a doubt.
We had to shutdown Rumble in France because you have NO committment to freedom of expression.
The story of Chris Pavlovski, CEO of Rumble, further complicates this narrative. His decision to leave the EU following Durov’s arrest underscores the growing unease among tech leaders about the increasing regulatory pressures of the EU. Pavlovski’s departure can be seen as a preemptive move to avoid the legal and financial risks of operating in a jurisdiction that tightens its grip on digital platforms. It also reflects a broader trend of tech companies seeking more favourable regulatory environments, often at the expense of user rights and freedoms.
All these controversial examples bring us to the heart of this debate: where to draw the line between free speech and harm prevention. Encrypted platforms like Telegram offer unparalleled privacy but pose significant challenges for law enforcement. The potential for these platforms to be used by criminals and extremists cannot be ignored. However, the solution is more complex. Overzealous regulation risks stifling free expression and driving users to even more secretive and unregulated corners of the internet.
Pavel Durov’s case is a microcosm of the larger global struggle over digital rights. It forces us to confront uncomfortable questions: Do platforms like Telegram have a responsibility to monitor and control the content shared by their users, even at the cost of privacy? Should governments have the power to compel these platforms to act, or does this represent an unacceptable intrusion into the private sphere? Should social media companies that monetise content on their platforms be held responsible for the content they allow? And ultimately, how do we find the balance in the digital world we live in to optimally combine privacy and security in our society?
These questions will only become more pressing as we watch Durov’s and similar legal cases unfold. The outcome of his case could set a precedent that shapes the future of digital communication, influencing not just Telegram but all platforms that value user privacy and free speech. Either way, Durov’s case also highlights the inherent conflict between cyberspace and real space. There was once a concept that the online world—the domain of bits, bytes, and endless data streams—existed apart from the physical reality we live in. In the early days of the internet, this virtual space seemed like an expansive, unregulated frontier where the laws of the physical world did not necessarily apply. However, cyberspace was never a separate entity; rather, it was an extension, a layer added to the world we already knew. Therefore, the concept of punishment in the digital world has always been, and still is, rooted in the physical world. Those held responsible for crimes or who commit crimes online are not confined to a virtual jail; they are subject to controversies in the real world and legal systems, courts, and prisons.
Elon Musk’s social media platform X faces a critical showdown with Brazil’s Supreme Court, which could soon order the platform shutdown in the country. The legal battle escalated after X missed a deadline to appoint a legal representative in Brazil, a requirement under local law. The conflict has deepened tensions between Musk and Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes, whom Musk accused of engaging in censorship.
True, Brazil is controlled by a tyrannical dictator masquerading as a judge https://t.co/kkPfNRrBOh
Earlier this month, the Brazilian Supreme Court froze the bank accounts of Musk’s Starlink satellite internet company as part of a broader dispute over X’s non-compliance with court orders. The fines, reportedly amounting to over $3.6 million, stem from X’s failure to provide certain documents requested by the court. In response, Musk took to X to denounce the court’s actions, labelling Moraes as an ‘evil dictator’ and announcing that SpaceX would offer free internet service to Brazilian users until the matter is resolved.
The heart of the dispute lies in Judge Moraes’ orders to block accounts on X that are accused of spreading misinformation, particularly those linked to former President Jair Bolsonaro supporters. Musk has publicly criticised these orders as censorship, arguing that they violate free speech. Despite initial resistance, X eventually agreed to comply with the court’s demands but cited operational issues for its incomplete compliance.
This legal struggle has jeopardised X’s future in Brazil, one of its largest markets. The platform had already announced plans to close its operations in the country, blaming Moraes’ censorship orders for the decision. Meanwhile, Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has backed Moraes’ stance, emphasising the importance of respecting local laws and protecting private information.
As the battle unfolds, Brazilian users of X have reacted with a mix of humour and concern, creating memes and debating the implications of the court’s actions on free speech. The situation remains tense, with the potential shutdown of X in Brazil looming, highlighting the broader conflict between digital platforms and governmental control.
Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg has disclosed in a recent letter that senior Biden administration officials pressured his company to censor COVID-19 content during the pandemic. The letter, sent on 26 August to the US House Judiciary Committee, reveals Zuckerberg’s regret over not publicly addressing this pressure sooner and his acknowledgement of questionable content removal decisions made by Meta.
Zuckerberg detailed in the letter that, in 2021, the White House and other Biden administration officials exerted considerable pressure on Meta to suppress certain COVID-19-related content, including humour and satire. According to Zuckerberg, this pressure led to frustration when Meta did not fully comply.
The letter, which the Judiciary Committee on Facebook shared, highlights Zuckerberg’s criticism of the government’s actions. He expressed regret for not being more vocal about the situation and reflected on the decisions made with the benefit of hindsight.
Mark Zuckerberg just admitted three things:
1. Biden-Harris Admin "pressured" Facebook to censor Americans.
2. Facebook censored Americans.
3. Facebook throttled the Hunter Biden laptop story.
— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) August 26, 2024
The White House and Meta have not commented on the matter outside regular business hours. The Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jim Jordan, has labelled the letter a ‘big win for free speech,’ noting Zuckerberg’s admission that Facebook censored some content.
Additionally, Zuckerberg announced that he would refrain from contributing to electoral infrastructure for the upcoming presidential election. The approach follows his controversial $400 million donation in 2020 through his Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, which faced criticism and legal challenges from some groups who perceived it as partisan.
According to French authorities, Pavel Durov, the founder of the messaging app Telegram, was detained in France as part of an ongoing investigation into several serious crimes, including child pornography, drug trafficking, and fraud. The arrest occurred at Le Bourget airport near Paris, and French President Emmanuel Macron later confirmed the news, stressing that the arrest was not politically motivated.
I have seen false information regarding France following the arrest of Pavel Durov.
France is deeply committed to freedom of expression and communication, to innovation, and to the spirit of entrepreneurship. It will remain so.
The arrest is tied to an investigation launched in July by the Paris prosecutor’s office, focusing on Telegram’s alleged role in facilitating illegal activities, including running an online platform for illicit transactions and refusing to provide information to authorities. The probe also includes allegations of money laundering and giving cryptographic services to criminals. Durov, who holds several citizenships, including the French, could be detained further as the investigation progresses.
When you say you are committed to freedom of expression, you are lying. We have a letter from France that proves this, without a doubt.
We had to shutdown Rumble in France because you have NO committment to freedom of expression.
Telegram, which boasts nearly a billion users worldwide and is especially popular in Russia and Ukraine, responded by stating that it complies with the EU laws and maintains industry-standard moderation practices.
The company dismissed claims that the platform or Durov himself was responsible for criminals’ app misuse.
On the other side, the Kremlin has expressed concerns that France’s accusations against Telegram founder Pavel Durov could be an attempt to limit freedom of communication unless supported by substantial evidence. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov announced that Russia is prepared to assist Durov due to his Russian citizenship, though his French citizenship presents additional challenges. Peskov emphasised that the gravity of the charges requires equally serious evidence to avoid perceptions of an effort to curtail communication freedoms.
It would be helpful to the global public to understand more details about why he was arrested
Peskov also suggested that the case might be used to intimidate a prominent business leader and questioned French President Emmanuel Macron’s assertion that Durov’s detention was free from political motives. Russia has previously faced challenges in blocking Telegram and has fined the company for not removing content it deemed illegal.
The UAE has also called for clearer information about the arrest and investigation. The UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated that it is closely monitoring Pavel Durov’s case and has requested the French government to urgently provide consular services. The ministry emphasized prioritising its citizens’ care, safeguarding their interests, and ensuring comprehensive support are key commitments for the UAE.
Ultimately, Elon Musk confronted Emanuel Macron by responding directly to his post on X, claiming that ‘It would be helpful to the global public to understand more details about why he was arrested’, as he described it as an attack on free speech.
The founder of the Telegram messaging app from Russia, Pavel Durov, was arrested at Le Bourget airport near Paris after landing on a private jet from Azerbaijan. The arrest has sparked broader reactions, with Moscow warning Paris about ensuring Durov’s rights and criticism from X owner Elon Musk, who called the incident an attack on free speech in Europe.
🚨 RUSSIA DEMANDS ACCESS TO TELEGRAM CEO | FRANCE HESITATES
Pavel Durov was detained by French police, allegedly for refusing to grant authorities access to his encrypted messaging app, which has over 1 billion users worldwide.
The French authorities allegedly detained Durov based on an arrest warrant related to his involvement in a preliminary investigation and his unwillingness to grant authorities access to his encrypted messaging app, which has over 1 billion users worldwide. In response, Russian officials have demanded consular access, but France, citing Durov’s French citizenship as primary, has remained unresponsive. The Russian Embassy in Paris is seeking an explanation and urging France to protect Durov’s rights.
The investigation concerns Telegram’s alleged role in enabling a wide range of crimes due to insufficient moderation and lack of cooperation with law enforcement. Durov, who allegedly holds several citizenships, including Russian (from the devolution in 1991, previously the Soviet Union from birth), Saint Kitts and Nevis (from 2013), French (from 2021) and UAE (from 2021), may face indictment soon.
Telegram, based in Dubai and widely used across Russia and the former Soviet Union, has faced scrutiny for its role in disseminating unfiltered content, especially during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Durov, who left Russia in 2014 after refusing to comply with government demands, has consistently maintained that Telegram is a neutral platform committed to user privacy and free speech.
In 2011, Durov said the Russian government asked him to delete the accounts of anti-government people on his social media platform. He refused. After the 2014 coup in Ukraine, Durov refused to provide the Russian government with information about users involved in the event. pic.twitter.com/hqnijdiBJ5
The Russian government has responded to Durov’s arrest with solid criticism. Maria Butina, a Russian lawmaker, labelled him a political prisoner, while former President Dmitry Medvedev criticised Durov for underestimating the global security landscape. However, days before Telegram founder Durov was arrested in France, he was negotiating directly with President Putin to secure his return to Russia after years of self-imposed exile in 2014. Putin allegedly refused to meet with Pavel Durov.
Meanwhile, Telegram’s increasing scrutiny in Europe, particularly over security and data breaches, raises concerns among authorities. Elon Musk’s response to the arrest highlights the broader debate on free speech in Europe, making Durov’s situation a focal point for discussions on the role of tech platforms in geopolitics and the balance between security and freedom.
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 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.
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.
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.
