A troubling investigation by the think tank British Future has revealed a stark reality about social media platform X and its handling of hate speech aimed at prominent UK politicians. Despite numerous reports detailing racially abusive posts, including a staggering 30 instances of the N-word being directed at Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, X has largely failed to take action, raising serious questions about the platform’s commitment to combatting online hate.
A Shocking Lapse in Moderation
In May of this year, researchers from British Future submitted multiple complaints regarding posts that violated the platform’s guidelines on hate, abuse, or harassment. Alarmingly, their efforts were met with little to no response. Avaes Mohammad, a key researcher for the British South Asian Bridgers project, highlighted the platform’s alarming trend of inaction, stating, “Many people will intuitively report racist posts as ‘hate, abuse or harassment’ – but it seems X doesn’t consider it as hate.”
The social media giant only began to restrict visibility on two of the reported posts after Sunder Katwala, director of British Future, intervened, emphasising that it was unreasonable to expect individuals to navigate a convoluted reporting process for each offensive post.
The Bigger Picture: Political Context
The context surrounding these incidents cannot be ignored. Since Elon Musk’s acquisition of X in 2022, the platform has been accused of amplifying far-right narratives, leading to a worrying rise in racially charged language. This has led to politicians like Keir Starmer accusing Musk of fostering division with inflammatory tweets.
On the same day that Ofcom, the communications regulator, announced X’s voluntary commitment to remove illegal content within 48 hours, British Future identified 33 instances of the P-word being used against public figures. Despite these reports, X failed to take down any of the flagged posts, prompting further scrutiny regarding its internal moderation policies.
A Call for Accountability
The lax approach to moderating hate speech on X not only endangers the online safety of public figures but also raises concerns about the platform’s overall responsibility in addressing harmful content. British Future reported another nine posts containing the P-word that went unaddressed, clearly highlighting a pattern of neglect. It’s especially alarming that the accounts associated with this hate speech remain active, with no suspensions implemented — one account reportedly used the N-word 45 times in a single week.
Mohammad expressed concern over the implications of such inaction: “The accounts we are reporting are often replete with mentions of Reform and Restore. In May, the N-word racist slur was used about Kemi Badenoch an average of once a day. But on 2 June, there were 16 examples in a day—pointing to how much far-right political sentiment is driving the hate on X.”
Ofcom’s Role and the Road Ahead
Ofcom has reiterated its stance against racism and its commitment to ensuring platforms like X comply with the Online Safety Act, which mandates the removal of illegal content. While they have committed to quarterly reviews of X’s performance, the regulator’s role is to oversee compliance rather than dictate content removal.
Despite X eventually restricting 20 tweets after Ofcom’s intervention, the overall lack of accountability for hate speech remains a significant concern. This pattern of inaction underscores an urgent need for social media platforms to adopt more robust measures against hate and harassment.
Why it Matters
The implications of X’s failure to act against hate speech extend far beyond individual posts; they reflect a broader cultural issue that normalises racial abuse and undermines the safety of public discourse. As political tensions rise and the far-right narrative gains traction online, it is imperative that social media platforms uphold their responsibilities to foster safe environments for all users. The ongoing inaction could embolden racists, posing a direct threat not only to targeted individuals but to the integrity of democratic discourse itself.
