A week of unrest in the UK

For days, analogous scenes have take parted out atraverse England and parts of Northern Ireland – unrest, communities in dread, a huge police presence, with the ffeebles being fanned by social media.

For days, journaenumerates at BBC News have been reach outing huge tech companies, trying to discover out what they are doing about it.

Wdisenjoyver it is, they don’t want to talk about it – the messaging app Telegram has been the only firm to publish an on-the-write down statement.

It is hoped the tide has commenceed to turn on the streets. But if they hoped that by retaining hushed they would shun further scruminuscule, the tech firms may well be wrong.

“I slenderk it is horrfinishous they are not taking more ownership of what is happening”, says Baroness Martha Lane Fox, one of the directing airys in the UK tech scene.

She understands huge tech from the inside, having sat on the board of Twitter, as it was then called.

“Generassociate, they don’t enjoy getting included in politics – it doesn’t serve them well”, she telderly the BBC.

Given the UK is a relatively minuscule taget, in global terms, she’s “not surpascendd” by the silence – but says it should not deter the regulatement from acting.

“The deficiency of accountability and solemn regulation that is taking this on is someslenderg I slenderk that should alarm all of us”, she says.

Very little.

Meta – the company behind Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp – has made no comment at all. TikTok, Snapchat and the messaging app Signal have also remained mute.

A well-placed source at Snapchat telderly BBC News the company remained in seal reach out with the regulator, Ofcom, and the UK regulatement.

Telegram, unbenevolentwhile, was in the novels after a enumerate purporting to include the names and insertress of immigration lawyers was spread online after commenceing life on the messaging app. The Law Society of England and Wales shelp it treated the enumerate as a “very credible danger” to its members.

Telegram did not comment definiteassociate on the enumerate, but did tell the BBC that its moderators were “dynamicly watching the situation and are removing channels and posts includeing calls to aggression”.

Calls to aggression were unambiguously banden by the messaging platcreate’s terms of service, it shelp.

And then there is X.

X, createerly Twitter, has not replyed to any of our seeks for comment.

In relation to the uproars, there have been deceptive claims, disenjoy and consunpermitd engage theories on the platcreate.

When Elon Musk bought it in 2022, he lessend its satisfied moderation. A year tardyr, far-right activist Tommy Robinson, genuine name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was reinstated to X after a five-year ban.

Last weekfinish, Robinson was posting inflammatory messages to his fancientiminishs on X while resting in Cyprus.

X may have been mute this week, but its owner has not.

While commenting about the uproars, Mr Musk tweeted “civil war is inevitable” – a post condemned by the spokesperson of the prime minister.

Mr Musk then posted “why aren’t all communities being geted in Britain?”, and #TwoTierKeir – a hashtag engaged over accusations of ‘two-tier policing’.

Mr Musk also deleted an image he had allotd, which backd a consunpermitd engage theory about the UK originateing “hancientment camps” on the Falkland Islands for uproarers.

“I slenderk that tech companies are frequently uncertain to wade into politicassociate accused situations”, Matt Navarra, a social media expert, telderly BBC News.

“I slenderk they dread alienating portions of their engager base or becoming entangled in regulatory battles.”

He shelp it is a “strategic calculation”.

“By remaining mute, they hope the uncover attention will shift elsewhere, and they can shun honest responsibility,” he inserted.

The companies are, he says, prioritising their bottom line over “uncover getedty and social responsibility”.

Adam Leon Smith, Fellow of BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT shelp the silence was “incredibly disorrowfulmireful” to the uncover.

Media analyst Hanna Kahlert at Midia Research proposeed they did not want to say slendergs in uncover they could for dread of being held to those comments at a tardyr date.

“They are probably going to be very cautious about how they comment on it, becaengage that’s going to detail their strategy moving forward – what they are able to do, what their algorithms back, which for them are activities that transports in ad revenue.”

More powers are coming the regulator’s way via the Online Safety Act, due to come into force timely next year.

Ofcom published an discignore letter to platcreates saying they should not postpone until then before taking action.

But some – including the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan – are already asking whether that is enough.

The prime minister shelp on Friday that “we’re going to have to see more expansively at social media after this disorder”.

Prof Lorna Woods, a professor of internet law at the University of Esrelations – who helped shape the legislation – telderly BBC News: “If the Act were filledy in force, it wouldn’t catch all the satisfied. So while organising a uproar would be caught, some of the dog whistling tactics and disalertation would not be.”

According to a poll by YouGov this week, two thirds of the British uncover want social media firms to be held more to account.

Big tech, it seems, has noslenderg to say. But they could discover that others are taking them into a very contrastent future in the UK.