OPINION: How X went from real-time news platform to hate hub

If you were to look for authoritative, reliable information about current events, healthy debate, and balanced, political discourse, I doubt your first instinct would be to scroll through X.  

There was once a time that the platform formerly known as Twitter was a go-to source for activists, politicians, journalists, and the public looking for real-time news. Since Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform in 2022, things have changed.

Under Musk’s leadership, my organisation, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) has documented the rise of racism, antisemitism, misogyny, and other types of hate and disinformation on X.

Following his declaration of “general amnesty” for previously banned users, the likes of Andrew Tate, Tommy Robinson, neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin and more have returned to the platform, generating millions in advertising revenue as their enraging content generates views.

Since October 7, CCDH found that just 10 influential accounts on X posting hateful content grew their followings on average four times faster by exploiting the Israel-Gaza conflict. Antisemites now can flock back to a platform that won’t kick them off for spreading lies – they can recruit more followers, share more conspiracies, and continue to divide communities through hate.

Social media has fundamentally changed how we interact, access information and garner consensus. A healthy discourse is integral to a healthy democracy.

We can no longer ignore the fact that a significant part of our discourse now takes place online on social media platforms.

The horrifying social disorder and violence we saw in the aftermath of the Southport murders was a stark reminder of how social media can be instrumental in spreading digital hate and misinformation which can lead to violence on the streets.

Since 7 October, CCDH found that 10 influential accounts on X posting hateful content grew their followings on average four times faster by exploiting the Israel-Gaza conflict.

In the days following the murderous attack, there were riots in Southport and across the UK, triggered by false information spread online. The very same individuals – Tommy Robinson, Andrew Tate, the leaders of Britain First – used X to rack up hundreds of millions of views on false claims about the attacker’s identity.

Our researchers found that accounts spreading disinformation were monetised, with a ‘blue tick’ verification that granted them the appearance of greater credibility and prioritised ranking in X’s algorithm.

For X, and all social media platforms, your attention is king. The longer they can keep you scrolling, enraged and engaged, the more adverts the platforms can serve you.

Social media platforms actively incentivise hate and controversy ‘by design’ because controversial content is addictive, and if users spend more time on a platform, the platform makes more money. Not only that, hate actors like Tommy Robinson understand this and leverage the products’ design to not only spread their hate widely but for profit. The more controversial and hateful the content, the more it is algorithmically amplified, the more we see it in our feeds and the more money the bad actors and the social media companies profit from it.

The dominance of the social media industry on our information economy has yet to be matched by corresponding safety regulations. Every other major industry must by abide by laws and rules set by governments and independent watchdogs.

With last year’s passage of the Online Safety Act in the UK, for the first time, there are now rules in place for platforms to follow to ensure they are not allowing illegal content to reach their users and that they are taking action when platform rules are broken.

Ofcom can hold companies accountable only if legislation is robustly implemented and enforced.

• More at Center for Countering Digital Hate