1) Yes these violent riots were down to ugly people drunk on their own nasty personality traits and substances. But I think similar things about many of those who go on 'mainly peaceful' protests in liberal Western countries. Many of them too seem to me to be drugged up...in this case on their own wilfully ignorant self-righteousness. The difference is a matter of degree. Nobody goes on a protest in Iran or Afghanistan for the fun of it....for an edgy day out with their mates.
2) I despair of the current wave of 'misinformation' discourses coming from all sides of the political spectrum. The very meaning of the word is riddled with imprecision and tendentiousness. For example when a 'news' broadcaster picks from the vast array of events unfolding around the world on that day - which highly selective bits they choose to amplify as important and which bits to ignore - is that 'misinformation'? If so 'misinformation has been the overwhelmingly dominant character of mass media right from its inception.
I once proposed to Dan the term ‘xisinformation’ as a label for the form of misinformation that arises when information is under-propagated relative to its importance. Maybe there’s an existing term that covers it but I do think it points to the very interesting species of information distortion you describe.
Excellent and timely post Dan. I agree on all points.
But some anti-censorship crusaders treat counterspeech itself as censorship, and this has led to the malicious demonization of people like Renee DiResta. Flagging misinformation can lead to content moderation decisions by platforms but the flagging itself is counterspeech and perfectly legitimate.
I mentioned the Powell speech in passing here, along with some precursors to the current unrest:
Thanks Rajiv. I'm reading DiResta's book at present on your recommendation! Enjoying it so far, although I also have some disagreements. It does seem that she has been very badly and unfairly maligned by bad-faith actors.
I have plenty of disagreements too, but she is hardly the cartoonish figure made out to be. The thing is, I don't think Shellenberger and Taibbi have been acting in bad faith, they really seem to hold beliefs in conspiracies that don't exist, maybe because they have encountered some that do.
Counterspeech can't be censorship all by itself, sure. But it's reasonable to notice when people are acting as part of a memeplex that is, when all is said and done, encouraging censorship.
I'm not familiar with DiResta's work; does she support effectively unaccountable corporations or governments deciding what is "misinformation" and what isn't? And if she does, what does she want them to do about the "misinformation"? (Even if she's not personally advocating that they do anything, the mere act of having a powerful institution put things on a list is not morally neutral. You don't put things on a list unless you're going to eventually go down that list.)
DiResta has a new book out, Invisible Rulers, and several podcast appearances, for instance with Joe Rogan and Sam Harris, including one joint appearance with Michael Shellenberger. Better you find out about her views directly from her instead of me trying to summarize them. She is a scholar of misinformation, not an adcocate of censorship in my opinion.
Thanks for an excellent post, which I _almost_ entirely agree with. But I think there's a few weaknesses.
Most critically, the strong pro-censorship argument isn't that censorship will solve all social unrest. Rather, it's more like the saying that "democracy is the very worst form of government, except for all the others". That is, the pro-democracy argument isn't that democratic states have no problems. But rather, overall they are better than alternatives. Of course the free-speech argument is similar, so I tend to believe this is fundamentally an empirical question. By analogy, it's not a claim that the police stop all crime. Instead, the assertion is that strong policing leads to a "safer" society.
I've gone through this a lot, arguing against more ideological and intellectual censorship advocates. They're not all knuckle-dragging stupid, making easily knocked-down absolute claims, as one often finds in newspaper columns. Perhaps a better analogy than "virus" is something like "climate change". The idea isn't that no bad climate events ever happened before. But rather, that pumping in a huge amount of energy to a system - i.e. extensive socially inflammatory lies by demagogic professional liars - tends to be bad for it. Even if no specific event or intensity has a provable direct, one-to-one, connection to any particular emitter. And further, there's distrust that dealing with this is an excuse for a political power-grab, and there's something to be said on that - but even so, the underlying "physics" is real.
"...extensive socially inflammatory lies by demagogic professional liars..."
Added this to my extensive personal "Quote Bank". Politicians, political parties, and partisan social / media influencers / bots / propagandists come to mind.
"Even if no specific event or intensity has a provable direct, one-to-one, connection to any particular emitter."
'No snowflake considers itself responsible for the avalanche.' - unknown
- Social media does make it easier to mobilise people quickly (for good or bad)
- Social media does amplify people like Yaxley-Lennon who would otherwise be standing on speakers corner
- Social media does make it easier for bad players, such as Russia to spot their rhetoric through the facade of domestic opinion.
- The silicon valley oddballs that control so much of what people see are very inclined to tear things up and see what happens as some sort of bizarre dice toss experiment. We are at the mercy of their whims.
I don't think I'd ban X/twitter but I may ban the app and develop one that interfaces with it and presents fact checking and information from other sources on the topic.
“The silicon valley oddballs that control so much of what people see are very inclined to tear things up and see what happens…”
Actually, as someone who lived there for 35 years, I can tell you that the “silicon valley oddballs” ain’t in control any more; it’s the young SJWs who are in control of the feeds (see the ridiculous wokeness that is Google Gemini [a.k.a. The ones with the black Nazis, but no white ones…] if you doubt me).
“but I may ban the app and develop one that interfaces with it and presents fact checking and information from other sources on the topic.”
Most of the so-called fact checkers out there are biased entities themselves! (Search Allsides.com re: Politifact etc. to see for yourself)
A government ban would be a terrible idea. But even if you are being semi-tongue in cheek, who gets to decide what the ”fact checking” and “information from other sources on the topic” get to be?
Do you not realize that this is LITERALLY what Facebook, and YouTube feeds are now?
Surely you are not one of those leftists claiming that Musk and Musk alone is doing “it” badly while Facebook, Google et al are getting “it” right?
If you are not, then please explain what you mean and how you would hope to accomplish something good in the real world with your “ban the app and develop…” proposal.
"There are undoubtedly many problems in the UK and many legitimate critiques one could raise about immigration policies, government failures, policing, economic stagnation, and so on. Nevertheless, these legitimate grievances are not driving the rioters, a loose collection of hateful, far-right fanatics and opportunistic, drugged-up thugs..."
But surely the far-right fanatics are fanatical about what they see as the calamatous failures of "immigration policies". To that extent, immigration policies were surely in part driving the riots.
Let's say that soon after 2010, the Tories had suceeded in meeting their manifesto pledge of reducing net migration to the "tens of thousands". If the Southport murders had happened against that backdrop, arguably the riot would have been less likely to happen.
So, I’m getting from this that liberalism is good. And is still good, despite the challenges of social media.
Race riots and spreading of misinformation happened before social media, and while social media can be a particularly effective bullhorn, root cause isn’t social media.
I’d say that’s an excuse. More likely it’s the frustration that’s been growing in the working class for the last decade. The “misinformation” may have added fuel to the fire, but it was already lit.
One aspect that seems to be forgotten already is that people were predicting similar riots before the incident in Southport. In the days before there was the incident in Leeds, the stabbing of the soldier in Kent, and the incident in Manchester. Events were already simmering, and Southport was the catalyst.
Great piece. It's the piece I've been wanting to write (and in the process of writing). Social media is hugely overrated when it comes to understanding the drivers of political conflict and violence, and I worry about the consequences for freedom of speech and thought in the wake of these riots.
I was not reading you in 2020, so I’m curious - did you ascribe the U.S. riots in the summer of 2020 mostly to the far-left activists, thugs, and hooligans?
If yes, bravo to you sir!
If no, how do you justify the difference in emphasis?
If no comment either way at the time, how do you justify your silence then but speaking up now?
Didn't blog in 2020. But yes, that description would have been accurate (of the rioters attacking police, people's businesses, etc. not simply those who were protesting - I make the same distinction in this case).
Online disinformation did not contribute to the riots. The far right does not care that the Rwandan was technically born here, they don’t recognize him as British and thinks he shouldn’t be here. Steve Laws and Carl Benjamin have said as much. This was a migrant killing Native British to them
There’s a lot of salient analysis here, but surely the use of social media shaped the development of the riots. Imagine a world without it; would spontaneous unrest break out in different cities, with warnings of attacks in dozens of places (not to mention the networked response by counter protesters and the authorities)?
My point is not that riots didn’t exist before social media but that there are ways they develop and organized and responded to that are definitely heavily influenced by social media. It has an effect, possibly a very significant one, although point taken that they aren’t necessarily “caused” by social media. Although who knows. If false information about the religion of the attacker was confined to one neighbourhood maybe we would not even be having this discussion.
Ethnic riots have traditionally been sparked by rumors about a provocation or outrage committed by a member of the out-group. It would be interesting to compare how these rumors functioned before with the new, social media powered version of the same thing. Superficially, it doesn’t seem all that different.
You sometimes get riots when a team wins a major sports title. And it's not the supporters of the team that lost so much as supporters of the one that won that does the rioting. see a list of examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_riot and also some links to scholarly studies. It seems to me that there is a certain segment of the population that just loves a good riot, especially with some looting thrown in, and these people come from all parts of the political spectrum. All you seem to need is for the police to be seen to have lost the ability to maintain order. See also the destruction and looting that happens some places after a huge natural disaster such as a hurricane.
The evidence that the killer “hates who we are” is that he murdered three young girls. And not just any three young girls, but three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance party. This is consistent with someone who views the freedom females have in Western nations as corrupt decadence. Is it slam-dunk proof? No. But it is evidence.
The connection with Islam, asylum-seekers, that while ball of wax is illustrated by the immigrant rape gangs in places like Rotherham. They also believe that Western women and girls are decadent and corrupt, and therefore of no value, and may freely be exploited.
To pretend that three girls murdered by a member of an immigrant family from Rwanda is completely unconnected with the rape of girls by members of immigrant groups from other non-Western nations is to exhibit a blindness so stark as to seem willful.
Clearly it has nothing to do with Islam though. So that was misinformation.
On the other hand it’s odd to say that the perp didn’t hate something, and I don’t think this was a protest on the mediocre lyrics on The tortured poets department. The guy may be mad, but there’s clear method in his madness. He attacked a dance school for children which was Taylor Swift themed. He did this for a reason. The reason is most probably that it was a premeditated attack on white children.
Just google her concerts and get an audience shot - it’s as white as Glastonbury or a weekend retreat for Guardian readers in the Cotswolds.
And therefore the riots didn’t stop after the perpetrator‘s name was revealed - the attack was ethnic and the response was ethnic. This happens in any society with inter ethnic conflict.
And I think it’s worth pointing out that Keir Starmer does have conflicting views on riots - there’s a picture of him literally taking the knee to a riot in a different country, riots based on an incident that was far less serious than this one.
We actually don't know whether it had anything to do with Islam or not. His parents are churchgoers I believe (from what I have read in the press) but there was no mention that he was or wasn't. The only thing that we do know is that nobody has reported him shouting Islamic religious slogans whilst carrying out the attack. So until we get positive information during his trial his religious affiliation (if he actually has any) is unknown. I can understand people assuming he was Muslim as the use of a knife in this sort of context appears to be one of their modus operandi.
I must wonder how things might have unfolded differently if information identifying the ethnicity of the perpetrator had been released immediately, instead of several days later.
I realize he could not be identified due to being under-18, but why hide he was black, born in the UK with parents from Rwanda . The information vacuum invited misuse. Rather than scold social media for disseminating misinformation, why not scold the authorities for being tone deaf and allowing this issue to get out of control.
“The information vacuum invited misuse. Rather than scold social media for disseminating misinformation, why not scold the authorities for being tone deaf and allowing this issue to get out of control.”
Two thoughts on this:
1) Yes these violent riots were down to ugly people drunk on their own nasty personality traits and substances. But I think similar things about many of those who go on 'mainly peaceful' protests in liberal Western countries. Many of them too seem to me to be drugged up...in this case on their own wilfully ignorant self-righteousness. The difference is a matter of degree. Nobody goes on a protest in Iran or Afghanistan for the fun of it....for an edgy day out with their mates.
2) I despair of the current wave of 'misinformation' discourses coming from all sides of the political spectrum. The very meaning of the word is riddled with imprecision and tendentiousness. For example when a 'news' broadcaster picks from the vast array of events unfolding around the world on that day - which highly selective bits they choose to amplify as important and which bits to ignore - is that 'misinformation'? If so 'misinformation has been the overwhelmingly dominant character of mass media right from its inception.
I once proposed to Dan the term ‘xisinformation’ as a label for the form of misinformation that arises when information is under-propagated relative to its importance. Maybe there’s an existing term that covers it but I do think it points to the very interesting species of information distortion you describe.
Why are you making a distinction between a first and second gen immigrant? Neither are English
Maybe they are Welsh?
I’m guessing this question isn’t for me.
Excellent and timely post Dan. I agree on all points.
But some anti-censorship crusaders treat counterspeech itself as censorship, and this has led to the malicious demonization of people like Renee DiResta. Flagging misinformation can lead to content moderation decisions by platforms but the flagging itself is counterspeech and perfectly legitimate.
I mentioned the Powell speech in passing here, along with some precursors to the current unrest:
https://open.substack.com/pub/rajivsethi/p/two-lives-in-one-day
Thanks Rajiv. I'm reading DiResta's book at present on your recommendation! Enjoying it so far, although I also have some disagreements. It does seem that she has been very badly and unfairly maligned by bad-faith actors.
I have plenty of disagreements too, but she is hardly the cartoonish figure made out to be. The thing is, I don't think Shellenberger and Taibbi have been acting in bad faith, they really seem to hold beliefs in conspiracies that don't exist, maybe because they have encountered some that do.
Counterspeech can't be censorship all by itself, sure. But it's reasonable to notice when people are acting as part of a memeplex that is, when all is said and done, encouraging censorship.
I'm not familiar with DiResta's work; does she support effectively unaccountable corporations or governments deciding what is "misinformation" and what isn't? And if she does, what does she want them to do about the "misinformation"? (Even if she's not personally advocating that they do anything, the mere act of having a powerful institution put things on a list is not morally neutral. You don't put things on a list unless you're going to eventually go down that list.)
DiResta has a new book out, Invisible Rulers, and several podcast appearances, for instance with Joe Rogan and Sam Harris, including one joint appearance with Michael Shellenberger. Better you find out about her views directly from her instead of me trying to summarize them. She is a scholar of misinformation, not an adcocate of censorship in my opinion.
Thanks for an excellent post, which I _almost_ entirely agree with. But I think there's a few weaknesses.
Most critically, the strong pro-censorship argument isn't that censorship will solve all social unrest. Rather, it's more like the saying that "democracy is the very worst form of government, except for all the others". That is, the pro-democracy argument isn't that democratic states have no problems. But rather, overall they are better than alternatives. Of course the free-speech argument is similar, so I tend to believe this is fundamentally an empirical question. By analogy, it's not a claim that the police stop all crime. Instead, the assertion is that strong policing leads to a "safer" society.
I've gone through this a lot, arguing against more ideological and intellectual censorship advocates. They're not all knuckle-dragging stupid, making easily knocked-down absolute claims, as one often finds in newspaper columns. Perhaps a better analogy than "virus" is something like "climate change". The idea isn't that no bad climate events ever happened before. But rather, that pumping in a huge amount of energy to a system - i.e. extensive socially inflammatory lies by demagogic professional liars - tends to be bad for it. Even if no specific event or intensity has a provable direct, one-to-one, connection to any particular emitter. And further, there's distrust that dealing with this is an excuse for a political power-grab, and there's something to be said on that - but even so, the underlying "physics" is real.
"...extensive socially inflammatory lies by demagogic professional liars..."
Added this to my extensive personal "Quote Bank". Politicians, political parties, and partisan social / media influencers / bots / propagandists come to mind.
"Even if no specific event or intensity has a provable direct, one-to-one, connection to any particular emitter."
'No snowflake considers itself responsible for the avalanche.' - unknown
Just a few thoughts (and not evidenced backed):
- Social media does make it easier to mobilise people quickly (for good or bad)
- Social media does amplify people like Yaxley-Lennon who would otherwise be standing on speakers corner
- Social media does make it easier for bad players, such as Russia to spot their rhetoric through the facade of domestic opinion.
- The silicon valley oddballs that control so much of what people see are very inclined to tear things up and see what happens as some sort of bizarre dice toss experiment. We are at the mercy of their whims.
I don't think I'd ban X/twitter but I may ban the app and develop one that interfaces with it and presents fact checking and information from other sources on the topic.
“The silicon valley oddballs that control so much of what people see are very inclined to tear things up and see what happens…”
Actually, as someone who lived there for 35 years, I can tell you that the “silicon valley oddballs” ain’t in control any more; it’s the young SJWs who are in control of the feeds (see the ridiculous wokeness that is Google Gemini [a.k.a. The ones with the black Nazis, but no white ones…] if you doubt me).
“but I may ban the app and develop one that interfaces with it and presents fact checking and information from other sources on the topic.”
Most of the so-called fact checkers out there are biased entities themselves! (Search Allsides.com re: Politifact etc. to see for yourself)
A government ban would be a terrible idea. But even if you are being semi-tongue in cheek, who gets to decide what the ”fact checking” and “information from other sources on the topic” get to be?
Do you not realize that this is LITERALLY what Facebook, and YouTube feeds are now?
Surely you are not one of those leftists claiming that Musk and Musk alone is doing “it” badly while Facebook, Google et al are getting “it” right?
If you are not, then please explain what you mean and how you would hope to accomplish something good in the real world with your “ban the app and develop…” proposal.
You write
"There are undoubtedly many problems in the UK and many legitimate critiques one could raise about immigration policies, government failures, policing, economic stagnation, and so on. Nevertheless, these legitimate grievances are not driving the rioters, a loose collection of hateful, far-right fanatics and opportunistic, drugged-up thugs..."
But surely the far-right fanatics are fanatical about what they see as the calamatous failures of "immigration policies". To that extent, immigration policies were surely in part driving the riots.
Let's say that soon after 2010, the Tories had suceeded in meeting their manifesto pledge of reducing net migration to the "tens of thousands". If the Southport murders had happened against that backdrop, arguably the riot would have been less likely to happen.
Excellent. Thorough
Do you see similar problems with Dawkin's theory of "memes" as with the idea that misinfo is a "virus?"
Thanks! Yes - and indeed that will be the focus of a post I will publish at some point in the next few weeks
So, I’m getting from this that liberalism is good. And is still good, despite the challenges of social media.
Race riots and spreading of misinformation happened before social media, and while social media can be a particularly effective bullhorn, root cause isn’t social media.
I’d say that’s an excuse. More likely it’s the frustration that’s been growing in the working class for the last decade. The “misinformation” may have added fuel to the fire, but it was already lit.
One aspect that seems to be forgotten already is that people were predicting similar riots before the incident in Southport. In the days before there was the incident in Leeds, the stabbing of the soldier in Kent, and the incident in Manchester. Events were already simmering, and Southport was the catalyst.
Great piece. It's the piece I've been wanting to write (and in the process of writing). Social media is hugely overrated when it comes to understanding the drivers of political conflict and violence, and I worry about the consequences for freedom of speech and thought in the wake of these riots.
I finished my piece: https://open.substack.com/pub/unsolicitedreflections/p/social-media-is-vastly-overrated?r=h4wg5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I think the piece is mostly fair.
I was not reading you in 2020, so I’m curious - did you ascribe the U.S. riots in the summer of 2020 mostly to the far-left activists, thugs, and hooligans?
If yes, bravo to you sir!
If no, how do you justify the difference in emphasis?
If no comment either way at the time, how do you justify your silence then but speaking up now?
Didn't blog in 2020. But yes, that description would have been accurate (of the rioters attacking police, people's businesses, etc. not simply those who were protesting - I make the same distinction in this case).
Online disinformation did not contribute to the riots. The far right does not care that the Rwandan was technically born here, they don’t recognize him as British and thinks he shouldn’t be here. Steve Laws and Carl Benjamin have said as much. This was a migrant killing Native British to them
There’s a lot of salient analysis here, but surely the use of social media shaped the development of the riots. Imagine a world without it; would spontaneous unrest break out in different cities, with warnings of attacks in dozens of places (not to mention the networked response by counter protesters and the authorities)?
Yes? That’s kind of the point of the article. Pogroms and riots have broken out before social media.
My point is not that riots didn’t exist before social media but that there are ways they develop and organized and responded to that are definitely heavily influenced by social media. It has an effect, possibly a very significant one, although point taken that they aren’t necessarily “caused” by social media. Although who knows. If false information about the religion of the attacker was confined to one neighbourhood maybe we would not even be having this discussion.
Riots spread across cities long before social media.
Ethnic riots have traditionally been sparked by rumors about a provocation or outrage committed by a member of the out-group. It would be interesting to compare how these rumors functioned before with the new, social media powered version of the same thing. Superficially, it doesn’t seem all that different.
You sometimes get riots when a team wins a major sports title. And it's not the supporters of the team that lost so much as supporters of the one that won that does the rioting. see a list of examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_riot and also some links to scholarly studies. It seems to me that there is a certain segment of the population that just loves a good riot, especially with some looting thrown in, and these people come from all parts of the political spectrum. All you seem to need is for the police to be seen to have lost the ability to maintain order. See also the destruction and looting that happens some places after a huge natural disaster such as a hurricane.
The evidence that the killer “hates who we are” is that he murdered three young girls. And not just any three young girls, but three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance party. This is consistent with someone who views the freedom females have in Western nations as corrupt decadence. Is it slam-dunk proof? No. But it is evidence.
The connection with Islam, asylum-seekers, that while ball of wax is illustrated by the immigrant rape gangs in places like Rotherham. They also believe that Western women and girls are decadent and corrupt, and therefore of no value, and may freely be exploited.
To pretend that three girls murdered by a member of an immigrant family from Rwanda is completely unconnected with the rape of girls by members of immigrant groups from other non-Western nations is to exhibit a blindness so stark as to seem willful.
Clearly it has nothing to do with Islam though. So that was misinformation.
On the other hand it’s odd to say that the perp didn’t hate something, and I don’t think this was a protest on the mediocre lyrics on The tortured poets department. The guy may be mad, but there’s clear method in his madness. He attacked a dance school for children which was Taylor Swift themed. He did this for a reason. The reason is most probably that it was a premeditated attack on white children.
Just google her concerts and get an audience shot - it’s as white as Glastonbury or a weekend retreat for Guardian readers in the Cotswolds.
And therefore the riots didn’t stop after the perpetrator‘s name was revealed - the attack was ethnic and the response was ethnic. This happens in any society with inter ethnic conflict.
And I think it’s worth pointing out that Keir Starmer does have conflicting views on riots - there’s a picture of him literally taking the knee to a riot in a different country, riots based on an incident that was far less serious than this one.
We actually don't know whether it had anything to do with Islam or not. His parents are churchgoers I believe (from what I have read in the press) but there was no mention that he was or wasn't. The only thing that we do know is that nobody has reported him shouting Islamic religious slogans whilst carrying out the attack. So until we get positive information during his trial his religious affiliation (if he actually has any) is unknown. I can understand people assuming he was Muslim as the use of a knife in this sort of context appears to be one of their modus operandi.
I must wonder how things might have unfolded differently if information identifying the ethnicity of the perpetrator had been released immediately, instead of several days later.
I realize he could not be identified due to being under-18, but why hide he was black, born in the UK with parents from Rwanda . The information vacuum invited misuse. Rather than scold social media for disseminating misinformation, why not scold the authorities for being tone deaf and allowing this issue to get out of control.
“The information vacuum invited misuse. Rather than scold social media for disseminating misinformation, why not scold the authorities for being tone deaf and allowing this issue to get out of control.”
Very fair point. But why not scold both?