Anyone who has tried to use X (formerly Twitter) since it was taken over by Elon Musk will know that it has become a platform where gross abuse and race hate are tolerated, and indeed encouraged by the algorithms and, often, by Musk’s personal endorsement.
X’s refusal to control such conduct is defended by Musk in terms of ‘free speech absolutism’. But that defence is hopeless. It is inconsistent with Musk’s own conduct in removing material disliked by authoritarian rulers whom he wants to work with (such as President Erdogan in Turkey).
READ MORE: Sign up to our must-read daily briefing email on all things Labour
But it is also intellectually incoherent: the right to free speech in a democracy where everyone is entitled to have their say cannot be extended to speech intended to intimidate or drown out the speech of others.
Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow, as RH Tawney put it. X calls itself the world’s town hall, but no town hall meeting would permit speakers to be shouted down by vile and often grossly racist abuse.
Musk’s recent interference in UK politics should be the final straw
But Musk’s shameless and ignorant interference in UK politics should be the final straw. That interference extended to publicising blatantly false rumours and tropes as well as arrogantly presuming to engage in a debate on equal terms with a democratically-elected Prime Minister (an arrogance no doubt fuelled by his ability, after much sycophancy, to secure a “conversation” with a certain disgraced former US President).
Quite rightly, the Labour government’s immediate policy response to that provocation has been restrained. Acting hastily in response to such behaviour leads to bad decision-making. It also risks inflating Musk’s self-importance: the eagle does not catch flies, as the Romans used to say.
READ MORE: Minister Jess Phillips says her riot comments were a ‘mistake’ after Tory criticism
But there is a lot that the Labour government, and Labour-led public bodies, Labour politicians and the wider Labour movement, can do now, without fanfare.
Many people are already seeking out alternatives to X
X’s power as a forum for debate in UK politics ultimately depends on what competition economists call “network effects”. The reason why people want to be on X is a perception that everyone else is on X, and the reason why X’s rivals (such as BlueSky) have found it hard to compete – even though they offer an equivalent or better service without the posturing right-wing billionaire and with far better moderation of content – is the perception that they are not “where the action is”.
But the thing about network effects is that they are powerful until, suddenly, they aren’t. If people begin to think that, actually, an alternative network is where the action is, then what was the slipping of a few isolated pebbles on a mountain slope can gather strength and turn into a landslide.
READ MORE: ‘Labour will face more marginals than ever in 2029. Preparation must start now’
Over the past week, there are signs that that is what is happening. In my area – law – a large number of lawyers and legal commentators have moved to BlueSky over the past week and scaled down or closed their accounts on X.
That appears to be part of a massive spike in UK sign-ups to BlueSky. A number of Labour MPs have opened or reactivated BlueSky accounts. Many political journalists and some think tanks are now engaging on BlueSky.
Government bodies moving platform could be a tipping point
So we may be at a tipping point. What is now needed is for it to tip. All of us can do our bit. At the very least, all Labour MPs and organisations who use X should now open and use a BlueSky (and/or Threads) account and signal on X that that is what they are doing so as to encourage their followers to move.
Most importantly, Labour-led public bodies – and UK government bodies – should do the same. A major reason why many commentators and others who need to be kept up to date with government decision-making (including me) remain on X at all is that we use it to get real-time information about UK government announcements in areas that affect our work.
READ MORE: Rayner vows union and business ‘partnership’ after New Deal summit
If all of that material were available at the same time on another platform, many of us could and would disengage from X completely.
There is absolutely no legal reason why that could not be done tomorrow, and no legal reason either why such a decision could not be justified (if justification was asked for) on the basis that it is in the public interest to have competition to an increasingly abusive and dysfunctional platform.
Ideally, they would in due course shut down their presence on X entirely: but that is not a decision that need be taken now.
One thing all of us in the Labour Party believe is that government can and should use its power to shape the market in ways that promote the public good and break unaccountable private monopoly power. This could be the moment when – without spending money, legislating or even taking formal regulatory action, we can do that. We should all take that opportunity, now.
SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
DONATE: If you value our work, please donate to become one of our supporters here and help sustain and expand our coverage.
PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or content, email [email protected].
Value our free and unique service?
LabourList has more readers than ever before – but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour’s policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.
