back to article Does UK's Online Safety Act cover misinformation? Well, that depends

MPs heard a range of interpretations of UK law when it comes to the spread of misinformation online, a critical factor in the riots across England and Northern Ireland sparked by inaccurate social media posts about the fatal stabbings at a children's dance class on 29 July last year. Southport merseyside UK July 30th 2024, …

  1. SVD_NL Silver badge

    It doesn't matter

    Whether or not this misinformation could've been removed or not based on this act is a moot point.

    This info spreads too fast to intervene in time, and the amount of communication channels is too large to coördinate takedowns, even if robust systems for this are in place. (i.e. complete control and censorship over private communications, and automated systems to accurately take down related messages).

    The root of the problem is not misinformation, it's deep-rooted racism in a large enough portion of the community to cause nation-wide riots. They already have racist views and violent tendencies, they just needed an excuse.

    What if the misinformation was true? It's a realistic scenario. Riots still would've happened, and it would still be nothing more than racist retaliatory behavior.

    Any negative information about foreigners is going to reinforce their racist beliefs, you don't need to rely on "fake news" for that.

    Stop trying to justify the existence of your censorship acts, and solve some real issues.

    Talk about how widespread and how intense the racism in the country is, and what you're going to do about it.

    Talk about your current asylum policy, and assess if there's any actual issues you can solve.

    Some clever misdirection here, they try to convince us the act is a good thing and solves real problems, and they avoid addressing difficult and controversial issues at the same time.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
      Trollface

      If I'm not mistaken, it's called politics.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It doesn't matter

      "violent tendencies"

      He killed 3 girls and wounded several other people. This person had been referred to Prevent THREE times.

      1. SVD_NL Silver badge

        Re: It doesn't matter

        And you think a reasonable reaction is to firebomb and attack completely unrelated mosques and muslim-owned stores?

        Protests, perhaps even riots are one thing, but targeted attacks against a specific ethnic/religious group is something else completely. And no matter how you feel about it, the fact remains that the government shouldn't focus on legislation regarding misinformation spread, but instead focus on the core issues at hand: immigration policy and racism.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It doesn't matter

          "targeted attacks"

          There were targeted attacks on specific businesses owned by specific groups after the Israeli retaliation to the Oct 7th attack.

          The core issue at hand is what drove the person to murder 3 children. The reaction afterwards is due to years of inaction by the authorities. It has been an all too frequent occurrence that something bad happens and it turns out that the authorities knew the person and knew that they posed a danger yet with all the money being spent and departments formed they still failed in their job.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It doesn't matter

          And you think a reasonable reaction is to firebomb and attack completely unrelated mosques and muslim-owned stores?

          Certainly not. Neither do I (a different person from the PP) think that a reasonable response to the horrors of Gaza is to unleash Holocaust 2: Electric Boogaloo, but this view seems to be unpopular in student circles.

          1. rg287 Silver badge

            Re: It doesn't matter

            Neither do I (a different person from the PP) think that a reasonable response to the horrors of Gaza is to unleash Holocaust 2: Electric Boogaloo, but this view seems to be unpopular in student circles.

            Really? Students suggesting that Israel shouldn't be occupying the West Bank (recognised as illegal by an Israeli government advisor and actual Holocaust survivor in 1967), levelling Gaza and committing war crimes amounts to calling for a "Holocaust 2"?

            I know, I know - if in doubt, discredit criticism of Israel by calling them anti-semitic. Even if the critics are actual Holocaust survivors.

            I'm sure there ae a few fringe voices calling for something drastic, in the same way there are a few fringe right wing nutjobs calling to "repatriate" anyone who doesn't have white skin because they're not really British are they. It is hardly reasonable to define fringe voices so broadly as "in student circles" any more than it's reasonable for me to suggest that "right wingers are horrible racists".

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: It doesn't matter

              "Students suggesting that.."

              They were doing a little more than that. They were calling for the elimination of a nation state.

              1. rg287 Silver badge

                Re: It doesn't matter

                This was all student groups in general then? Or a singular specific person at a single institution?

                This being a thread about misinformation, you'll be able to provide some sort of evidence of this happening so we can all be reassured it's not just one of those problematic Chinese whisper situations.

                "Oh, you know what people say..."

                "Which people?"

                "Well, just people. I heard it somewhere..."

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It doesn't matter

        Same after Harold Shippman kill 100s of people. I burned down a couple of hospitals to teach the NHS a lesson

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It doesn't matter

          Anything against young kids is somewhat more emotive and what Harold Shipman did was slightly less immediate.

      3. rg287 Silver badge

        Re: It doesn't matter

        He killed 3 girls and wounded several other people. This person had been referred to Prevent THREE times.

        So what you're saying is that following the Dunblane shootings, the reasonable thing would have been to firebomb the local Scout hut where the perpetrator had been a leader?1

        Whether or not the perpetrator was British or foreign, his acts did not justify setting fire to unrelated mosques, or hotels housing asylum seekers.

        Let's not condone thug life. Misinformation is clearly a problem on social media. But it's really the tip of the iceberg. The problem is the manner in which the mainstream media have normalised "always on", rolling news in which they're happy to fart out any old nonsense because "something's happening and News 24 needs something to say, even if we don't know the facts yet". Characters like Tice and Farage ("just tossing some questions out there") have fully teed into this kneejerk, reactionary news cycle and and created a tinderbox culture. Back in the day, if the Southport killings hadn't been reported until the 6 o'clock news, or the next days newspapers, the reporting would have been more sober - but what we get is people shoehorning their pet conspiracy theories into a situation whilst the bodies are still lying in the street. It's grim.

        I distinctly remember the Norwegian shootings by Breivik and how these sober "experts" were on the sofas of rolling news channels talking about the problems with Islamic extremism, and then it became apparent it wasn't an Islamic group, so they started talking about terror cells, was it militant greens? Then it became apparent it was a lone-wolf neo-Nazi and they all carried on talking guff like that's all they'd ever thought and yes, right-wing extremism is such an issue - never mind that half an hour ago they were confidently talking about radical Islam. How about you all shut the f- up until you know what the story is that you're trying to report?

        Bo Burnham nailed it with "Welcome to the Internet".

        Could I interest you in everything?

        All of the time?

        A little bit of everything

        All of the time

        Apathy's a tragedy

        And boredom is a crime

        Anything and everything

        All of the time

        The problem is that half the population are below average, and a fair proportion of them are fuckwits, which is why - prior to being regulated out of existence - predatory credit businesses like Brighthouse, Amigo Loans and Wonga.com were all incredibly profitable. And some proportion of them are highly susceptible to being confidently told that the foreigner wants your cookie by the person who is eating your cookie in front of you.

        1. Albeit booted out well before the shootings for being a dreadful leader who had kids getting hypothermia on his camps. But let's not have facts get in the way. There was some connection, thus GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION! Also probably a child molestor, but the Scouts booted him out for being unsafe. And don't get me started on those so-called "paediatricians". Hiding in plain sight!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It doesn't matter

          In 1996 we had factual news reporting, we did not have 24/7 opinion 'news' and scaremongering. There was not the same level of anxiety in society that there is now fuelled by the constant deluge of outrage news and political bias. We could deal with the issue rationally. It also helped that the shooter wasn't well known to the authorities and that they had failed to act.

          1. rg287 Silver badge

            Re: It doesn't matter

            It also helped that the shooter wasn't well known to the authorities

            Depends on your definition of "known to the authorities". He was known to local Police for his problematic "Boys Clubs" after he got canned by the Scouts and indeed made a nuisance of himself writing to anyone in authority including his MP and the Queen about how he was being harassed by Police. Chapter 6 of the Cullen Inquiry Report is instructive.

            He was known to the Firearms Licensing Office for some improper transfer of firearms (albeit a purchase he wasn't authorised to make which was from a registered dealer - so mainly the dealer's fault). There was an attempt at recovation in 1991, and again at his last renewal (1995) when the Licensing Officer wanted to refuse renewal but was basically over-ruled by management on the basis "He's not been convicted of anything" - which was not a prerequisite for deeming someone "unsuitable". This led to some unfortunate conspiracy theories at the time that he was a Mason and being protected by lodge brothers in the Police (spurred on by a chunk of inquiry evidence being placed under a 100year seal, but some of that was released after legal challenge and the rest are scene-of-crime and post-mortem photographic evidence that have no business being made public).

            The Cullen Inquiry eviscerated Central Scotland Police and did not recommend the prohibition of handguns!

            The Inquiry favoured procedural improvements such as actually training Licensing staff. Of course Blair had already made the handgun ban an election issue and boring stuff like having competent/trained staff was kicked into the long grass for 25 years until the Coroner's Inquiry into the Plymouth shooting described the Devon & Cornwall licensing office as "a dangerous shambles" (after they gave a shotgun back to an incel with known anger-management issues). Quite remarkable that the Chief Constable got away without corporate manslaughter charges, negligent as Police leadership was.

            There is now a training course.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: It doesn't matter

              To quote the report: " The violence which he used would not have been predictable"

              Yes, he may well have been a bit of a pdf but seems no obvious violent tendencies.

              Unlike the original case being discussed where there were very obvious indicators.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It doesn't matter

          What a load of waffle.

          The problem isn’t society - it’s people with massive egos like yourself who think they know better than anyone else and sit with your head in the sand whilst the country destroys itself due to mass immigration and multi culturalism not working - because some cultures don’t want to assimilate, they want to be pandered to and take over.

          Don’t come crying when you’re the last one left when the thought police come for you because you were too lazy and afraid to speak out.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It doesn't matter

      The problem isn’t racism, the problem is government lies and gaslighting.

      Instead of revealing the suspect details - which were known - to the press, Starmer’s government deliberately withheld Axel Rudakubana‘a religion and told the police not to release it (you can Google this btw).

      They then sat quietly whilst society drew its own conclusions based on recent events in Europe which had seem Islamic terrorists driving through markets killing people.

      Then, after they’d allowed the riots to happen, the government labelled anyone protesting (peacefully for the most part except for some groups) “far right” and individuals like you gobble it up like it’s fact….

  2. Like a badger

    Speed?

    Misinformation, lies, stupidity, extreme views have ALWAYS been about. The legendary "man down the pub" has always been a reliable well of bullshit, but his reach was limited, his credibility was evidently limited, and the social propagation time of even the most compelling myth was very slow. As we all know, a few early "likes", replies or re-posts can cause a bullshit social media post to be spewed in near real time to many thousands, even millions of insufficiently critical users, and suddenly the mob are reaching for their pitchforks.

    Would it be feasible to force big tech to adapt their algorithms so that posts from all unaccredited posters are disseminated MUCH more slowly, over days rather than seconds? So bullshit spreads at the speed of a flung cowpat, rather than almost the speed of light. Would that make a difference, could it be practical?

    1. elsergiovolador Silver badge

      Re: Speed?

      What to do with accredited posters on de facto Kremlin's payroll peddling disinformation?

      1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

        Re: Speed?

        What to do with accredited posters on de facto Kremlin's payroll peddling disinformation? …… elsergiovolador

        A valid question to be asked of the BBC and all mainstream media channels too, elsergiovolador.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Speed?

      Social media must literally monitor their situation 24/7. It is like running a nuclear reactor with a decent chance of runaway and meltdown.

      They have all necessary tools to throttle low reputation sources when fast-growing content matches sensitive keywords. This is not about freedom of speech, because the chain-reaction mechanism of the social media is a new artificial reality. People can still discuss and share privately.

      Instead of political opinions it would be nice to read the analytics of which social media facilitated the riots.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Speed?

        >They have all necessary tools to throttle low reputation sources when fast-growing content matches sensitive keywords.

        Facebook do, your local community / hobby / charity phpBB board doesn't

        So either take the risk that your sewing circle all go to jail if somebody posts 4chan material, or close it down and just switch to Facebook groups.

        1. heyrick Silver badge

          Re: Speed?

          Doesn't phBB have a reputation system? If enough people downvote something, it'll go away.

          It may even (or maybe it's the other BB system) have a user reputation system whereby if a user attracts too many downvotes then they'll just end up shouting at the moon.

          1. hairydog

            Re: Speed?

            Other users may be as nasty as the original poster, or be part of the same bot farm. Down voting and reporting is a routine task for peddlers of misinformation

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Speed?

      Misinformation, lies, stupidity, extreme views have ALWAYS been about.

      We have in Scotland laws designed to prevent us from saying things which the Supreme Court has now confirmed to be the legal truth. Defining "misinformation" ain't easy because defining "truth" ain't easy.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Speed?

        We have always had laws restricting publishing information even if it's true.

        Classified, commercial, medical, minors etc.

        Being 'true' doesn't automatically mean public

        1. FirstTangoInParis Silver badge

          Re: Speed?

          So what UK gov intend when drafting legislation versus what a court would interpret it as can be two different things, as we’ve recently seen with biological women and trans women judgement. I read an article somewhere that said the lead civil servant drafting that law was directed to make it cover biological and trans women but ministers made last minute changes that, intentionally or not, changed how a court would see it. As the minister said here, the Online Safety Act hasn’t yet been tested in court so politicians can argue all they like and it’ll make zero difference until it is tested.

        2. TechGeekUK

          Re: Speed?

          This is the most accurate post on here, yet it’s down voted so much…speaks volumes about the reg readers nowadays sadly

      2. TDog

        Re: Speed, that's the truth.

        "the legal truth", as opposed to PRAVDA which means official truth. I'm sure there is a grain of truth in there somewhere.

      3. rg287 Silver badge

        Re: Speed?

        We have in Scotland laws designed to prevent us from saying things which the Supreme Court has now confirmed to be the legal truth.

        I presume you're talking about the trans ruling. This did not impose any "truth" as such. It simply defined - in a very limited and specific way - how one specific Act of Parliament treated single-sex spaces.

        As you say, the "truth" is hard to define, because in this case the "legal" truth does not match the medical truth, with the BMA condemning the ruling and pointing out that even ignoring transgender issues, there are tens of thousands of Intersex individuals in the UK (enough to have their own MP!) who may have three or more chromosomes, whose genetic makeup doesn't match the genitalia they have, or whose genitalia may even be... "mixed". But according to the Supreme Court there are only two biological sexes - men and women! This of course is a very narrow ruling and does imply in the broader sense that "the only two sexes are men and women". Merely the application of a poorly-drafted law.

        Doctors have branded the Supreme Court transgender ruling as “scientifically illiterate”.

        The British Medical Association’s (BMA) resident doctors – previously called junior doctors – have voted to “condemn” the judgment, which ruled that trans women were not legally women.

        The doctors passed a motion at a conference on Saturday criticising the ruling as “biologically nonsensical”.

        The doctors claimed a binary divide between sex and gender “has no basis in science or medicine while being actively harmful to transgender and gender-diverse people”, according to a motion seen by The Times.

        That Supreme Court ruling is unlikely to last long because it's impractical, and is liable to be a phyrric victory for the activisis currently celebrating. Nobody is going to actually enforce what toilet people use, and if they're foolish enough to do so, then the first time a small business gets sued for discrimination for telling a particularly masculine (cis) woman or fem (cis) man to "use the other toilet", we'll suddenly find businesses saying "Sod this, there's the toilet for standing up, there's the toilet for sitting down. No more single-sex spaces".

        This will probably start sooner rather than later because the Supreme Court hedged their opinion by saying that Trans women could not use women-only spaces, but were still in themselves protected from discrimination and must be provided with facilities - how many firms can just find space for a third set of toilets?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Speed?

          Sadly the BMA is fully captured by the likes of stonewall.

          "has no basis in science or medicine"

          Well, yes, it does. Some people go to a gynaecologist and the others go to a urologist.

          Decades of progress on eliminating gender stereotypes has been erased in the last few years and hopefully the SCOTUK ruling will put us back on the right path.

          "how many firms can just find space for a third set of toilets?"

          Most already have this.

          1. rg287 Silver badge

            Re: Speed?

            Well, yes, it does. Some people go to a gynaecologist and the others go to a urologist.

            I imagine a girl (as assigned at birth based on genitalia) who actually has XY chromosomes and develops a penis at age 12 due to a 5-alpha reductase deficiency may well see both.

            But by all means... feel free to police which toilet they should be using... see where that gets you.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Speed?

      And who decides who is “trustworthy” when our own UK media is almost certainly being censored?

      This case was a great example of that…remember the police couldn’t release details because the government forced them to keep quiet?

  3. Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck

    Seeing as it was Muscolini and his Xitter "platform" that were the primary spreader of the misinformation and he's not in the UK, I fail to see how a UK law could have dealt with it unless it allowed for completely blocking the Xit Storm.

    1. Naich

      He has servers in the UK, so it absolutely does fall under the law.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        And you just need a UK government that is prepared to go to a trade war with the USA about that

  4. elsergiovolador Silver badge

    Feel good

    Let's be honest here.

    This is just one of those feel good policies, where politicians can tell themselves they done a good job, big corporations get extra layer of bureaucracy that keeps small players at bay and people affected by bowels of internet can feel reassured that government is taking it seriously.

    1. news.bot.5543

      Re: Feel good

      Maybe I'm just cynical, but it feels more of a thought-police policy, where it can be bent to target any chosen individual or group on a whim.

      1. elsergiovolador Silver badge

        Re: Feel good

        When measuring a policy it is good to look at it through the lens of not what current government is going to do with it, but what the next evil government can do with it.

        Surely this can be used to do many nefarious things if PM of the day likes to leave a moustache patch and pretends he wants to order five beers with his right hand stretched out during his morning bathroom routine.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Feel good

          I'd be more concerned about what the current evil government could do with it, rather than a future one.

          1. Richard 12 Silver badge

            Re: Feel good

            Foolish argument. Every government believes they're good and would never do anything bad.

            So always ask them to think about what a future one can do with it.

  5. Lazlo Woodbine Silver badge

    The rioters are not the brightest bunch, and I suspect they rarely bother to read community notices and the likes on Twitter.

    They're the same type of people who burnt the Spar down on an estate where I used to live because it opened on Christmas Day.

    The next day they realised they'd destroyed their only source of Diamond White within a mile.

    The same group were probably responsible for leaving a pediatrician in a wheelchair because his job title sounded dodgy.

    Yeah, the online safety act is a nice idea, but it won't stop mis and disinformation spreading on Telegram, Whatsapp & "Truth" "Social"

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Similar to the riots in the USA in the name of 'social justice' where the local shops are looted and burned quickly followed by the very same people complaining bitterly that their neighbourhood has no shops.

      Parts of LA have never recovered from the riots in 1992.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Different group of people who rioted though - over a known violent criminal…same ones who cry DEI every time they don’t get their way

    2. Lazlo Woodbine Silver badge

      Again, downvotes for making MAGA cry, they really are a bunch of snowflakes...

  6. ChrisElvidge Silver badge

    Didn't one N Farage have something to do with the misinformation?

    Should he be prosecuted for encitement?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Thats misinformation. You must be one of those low IQ types that gets fooled by it

    2. rg287 Silver badge

      Should he be prosecuted for encitement?

      Incitement.

      And yes, he should. But he knows how to coast just adjacent to the line where he's "just asking questions" without saying anything that could be held up as directly inciting violence. It all feeds into the general distemper, and then some numpty says "burn them all" and they're the one that ends up in court.

      Some will say I'm being unfair to him and that he's entitled to his opinion. I would contend that when his opinion is consistently and carefully calibrated to be just barely legal, that he has clearly crossed the line of "good faith" commentary.

      It's like someone standing up in front of the KKK and talking about how "the black man is going to take your jobs and daughters and you need to do something", but then sloping off at the back and insisting that of course you didn't mean they should lynch people - just write to their senator or something. You'd never have imagined that the mob with flaming torches were going to go off and commit violence after your impassioned speech blaming all their ills on people of darker complexions.

  7. Jamie Jones Silver badge

    "Bollocks and Lies"

    > misinformation and disinformation

    Oh come on, stop acting like American politicians, and call It what it is: Bollocks and Lies.

    1. heyrick Silver badge

      Re: "Bollocks and Lies"

      What's the difference between misinformation and disinformation? They're facts that are false presented as the truth, or as Jamie succinctly puts it: bollocks.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    But most misinformation comes from the government.

    I bet they end up having to explicitly exempt official news. Otherwise GBNews would have to close.

    1. FirstTangoInParis Silver badge

      Re: But most misinformation comes from the government.

      GBeebies have had their knuckles rapped a few times now over political bias and failing to offer balance. But actually a court just unrapped them. See https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-standards/ofcom-statement-in-response-to-high-court-judgment-gb-news-v-ofcom

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: But most misinformation comes from the government.

        Disgusting. What is the judge on? [ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86pp6wq1xno ]

        If they want to be able to get away with that, they should be renamed "GB Opinions" and be removed from the "News" section of the EPG.

        Sickening response from Frangopoulos about his definition of "free speech". If a left-wing equivalent of GB News existed, spouting equivalent lies, he would (rightly so) be up in arms.

        1. TechGeekUK

          Re: But most misinformation comes from the government.

          I think you’re talking about the BBC, I mean they peddle Starmer’s incessant lies as “truth” regardless of whether a quick google debunks them.

      2. TechGeekUK

        Re: But most misinformation comes from the government.

        And rightly so - the BBC have been getting away with their left wing bias for over a decade so why allow just them

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Misinformation"? You mean all official statements about the terrorist attack for days after

    A few hours after the attack the Home Office, the Prime Minsters Office etc knew all relevant information about the attacker - who they were, their background, their motivation etc - yet spent the immediate aftermath stonewalling and very deliberately shaping the media narrative to deflect blame away from the government , offices of state and most particularly, the PM.

    You know, just like the propaganda BS you can see any day of week on Channel 1 RU. On Russian state TV. With the BBC TV news acting little different from Vremya.

    The demonstrators (there was only a relatively small number of violent rioters) were on the streets because they knew they were being lied to. The vox pop had worked out immediately what had happened (as confirmed in the subsequent trial) despite the official denials and then the very heavy handed suppression of dissent by intimidation. If you have watched how the CRS deal with casseurs in France you can easily spot the difference between crowd control and very deliberate intimidation by forces of the state. The stark contrast with 2011 riots response was instructive.

    For all you pearl clutching Guardian readers who never got to see Belfast, London/Derry etc back in the 1970's and 1980's that's what comes next. Due to the United Russia (Единая Россия) style suppression of free speech in the UK by very deliberately targeted intimidation of ordinary people with legitimate concerns about what has been done to their country this will only end one way. Its not going to be pretty. In some UK inner city areas it already is n't.

    Dont believe me? Maybe check out what people like Prof David Betz is saying. About how close the UK is to a low intensity sectarian civil war. To anyone who saw "The Troubles" first hand everything he says rings true. Unfortunately. And he's a Canadian academic so has no political skin in the game.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Misinformation"? You mean all official statements about the terrorist attack for days after

      News reports violent rioters. Mrs Jones from number 14 who is a peaceful racist doesn't get views.

      That's how it is. Nothing to do with censorship or anti-free-speech, and your "pearl clutching Guardian readers" comment shows the bias you use trying to excuse thuggary.

      Sure, politicians are deceitful sociopaths, but that's got eff all to do with justifying burning down the local kebab shop because the owner has a funny name.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Misinformation"? ah, the burning of the kebab shop story..

        Maybe its because I have known way too many journalists over the decades, some you would have even seen on the telly, and I even married one, that whenever someone quotes some news story my first response is to dig it up and check just how reliable the story is. Or if it is even true to being with.

        So a search on the term "Stockport riots kebab shop fire" turns up two recent news stories. One is from 2024. One from the year before. The second story was about a Pro-Palestinian group attacked a kebab shop because the owner refused to abide by some boycott. Plenty of video of that attack. The first story was about a suspicious fire in the middle of the night at a kebab shop in Manchester. Which was treated as potential arson as some inflammable liquid was found on an outside door.

        See that proves I was right you might say. Not so quick. As there was no follow up story on the night-time fire incident, I checked, that means that the fire investigator could find no actual proof of a deliberate arson as the cause of the fire. You can be 100% certain there would have been a high profile follow up story in the media if any evidence had ben found. Given the context.

        So dont believe everything to see in the media. Especially some high profile politically charged story that reinforces your political opinions. Because it is most like untrue (by omission) or at best only partially true. Leaving out key facts.

        Because thats how the media has always worked. And why the whole concept of "misinformation" is quite simply laughable. So you read both sides (and those in the middle) and try to make an informed judgment as best you can.

        A daily reader of both the Telegraph and the Guardian (and Sunday Times) for many decades. Who still laments the loss of the old Observer and the pre 2014 Guardian. Once a joy to read.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Misinformation"? ah, the burning of the kebab shop story..

          I wasn't referring to a specific kebab shop burning, because I had never heard of one (and if I had, I'd indeed have checked it out)

          It was just a general take on how these things usually go down, but it's ironic it was so close to home that you thought I was referring to a specific event.

          That, and the rest of your patronising post then assumes (wrongly):

          - I uncritically absorb "leftie" news.

          - I am a "leftie"

          - You have some great superiority of understanding journalists that I couldn't hope to attain.

          As someone posted here earlier, you may be able to make an informed judgement, so may I (despite your accusation otherwise), and so may all of the register readers, but the vast majority can't. And if they could, GBnews and Fox wouldn't even exist, because they'd be useless to their backers.

  10. rgjnk Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Minitrue

    Amazing how some people are so eager to have an official version of the truth and for all things contrary to that to be stamped on.

    I guess they haven't learned the many lessons of the past where the official truth turned out to be somewhat less factual than the 'misinformation', or how a new management might decide the new 'truth' is something some people might find unpleasant.

    The cheerleaders are also frequently oblivious to how these wonderful powers could be easily turned against them. Again missing the repeated lessons in how these things are inevitably abused.

    You can always find an unpleasant event to use as an emotional justification for anything, but the resulting law is rarely good.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Minitrue

      It is really difficult to stop such regulation being abused by authorities, but we must strike a balance.

      "Say what you like knowing it's absolute tosh" is how America is in the state it's in now, and the same bullshit is creeping into the Uk politics now too.

      Some say "well this is obvious rubbish - viewers will realise that", but MAGA and reform voters prove otherwise. People at a risk of harm to themselves are looked after. There should be measures to protect stupid people from themselves too.

      Besides, if all viewers were discerning, these propaganda "news" outlets wouldn't exist, as their reason for being wouldn't work.

      1. Catkin Silver badge

        Re: Minitrue

        Do you feel comfortable with that legislation being in the hands of MAGA or Reform or are you hoping they will never gain power ever again?

        Even seemingly innocuous overreach can be dangerous in their hands: DOGE was made possible by a lazy legislative fix passed under Obama to speed the roll out of ACA. Yes, that doesn't preclude MAGA/others passing their own bad legislation but DOGE would be much more toothless or have been held up if those systems hadn't been in place.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Minitrue

          This has always been the dance between the two sides of the US uniparty. The filibuster being a common topic. 'We must abolish the filibuster!!!' and then 6 months later the same person praises the filibuster for 'saving' something. I think it was Harry Reid who championed the change in the Senate from a supermajority to a normal majority for certain votes and then he got all bent out of shape when the very same thing he wanted results in votes going the 'wrong' way.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Minitrue

          Of course not - as I pointed out in my very first sentence.

          However I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if your paediatrician other-half got attacked by an angry mob due to misinformed postings.

          1. Catkin Silver badge

            Re: Minitrue

            Certainly, I'd complain but I wouldn't demand, nor would my complaints be an invitation for dangerous political overreach.

  11. Conundrum1885 Bronze badge

    Ridiculous!

    Argument is 'we need to look at people's bank accounts' because terrofraudophiles' you know what, before anyone can even blink everyone is now a suspect.

    Sooner or later people will realize that the Labour Party are just closet Conservatives who simply steal policy rather than making their own.

    I don't condone anarchy but sometime a little prod is needed to make Government understand that WE THE PEOPLE put them in this position of power, and with such power comes responsibility. Fail to respect that and a Government may fall no matter how totalitarian.

    1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

      Re: Ridiculous!

      > "Sooner or later people will realize that the Labour Party are just closet Conservatives who simply steal policy rather than making their own."

      I think most people know that. I did even before the election, but the choice was between them, the loony hateful xenophobic fascist new conservatives and the equally bad reform.

      1. TechGeekUK

        Re: Ridiculous!

        You thought Labour were your best option?

        Next time - do some research!

        1. Graham Cobb

          Re: Ridiculous!

          Unfortunately with our pre-war-style voting system, tactical voting is normally required. Maybe when we have PR, people will be able to actually vote for the party their research shows most support their views.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Online Safety Act".......Yup well paid people in SW1 are "doing something"......

    .......but there's ABSOLUTELY NO SIGN of enforcement.......

    (1) Acres of environmental legislation..........but the rivers are overflowing with sewage!

    (2) GDPR......but when the Royal Free Hospital turns over 1.6 million citizen medical records to Google/Deepmind..............nothing at all is done!

    (3) Walk any "rat run" street in any town at all............and the Mercs and BMWs.....are failing mightily at obeying the 30mph speed limit......nothing at all is done!

    .....but we hear every night on the BBC or ITV news about how our legislators are "doing something" about the next social media "crisis".

    Please...........give me a break! Most of the misinformation I'm hearing comes from................SW1.....................

  13. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge

    Be very, very careful. It's *oh so convenient who is and isn't targeted here*

    Although the Southport attack was abhorrent, the other news that springs immediately to mind is the 'assault' on Matt Hancock's advisor back in 2019.

    It was clearly rubbish, but in the new world of up to the minute 'news' and everyone desperate for engagement, reporters who should know better submitted breaking news without verifying the source. I'd like to say things have improved since, but I've seen little sign of it.

    Seems to me MPs think this legislation is a big stick to hit people with when the consequences are something they dislike, even when the root cause (social cohesion, funding, facilities) are very definitely political ones. The rules apply to 'online' but not so much other information sources.

    Another possibility is tumbling many of the influencers and algorithmic boosts of posts in social media - but that would break their business model, so don't hold your breath.

    Not to mention the orange faced 'leader of the free world' frequently is Economical With The Actualité. Remind me just how long it took Twitter to ban him last time?

    The online safety act applies regardless of location and jurisdiction. Based on the above Twitter, owned by er, the right hand of Orange Face, should ban Orange Face for misinformation based on the OSA. Alternatively, they need to ban everyone in the UK from accessing it.

    Bets on this happening, ever?

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Danger Danger.

    We should not forget that truth seems to be subjective. That may sound illogical but seems to be the case for people with any subject other than mathematics driven. I don't want the government (or the bought press) deciding what is misinformation, disinformation, malinformation or any other xxxinformation term they come up with. I want to decide. It seems to me that an awful lot of what comes out of government and media is misinformation. Who owns the truth? I don't want to delegate that to someone else thank you. We have a normal mum in jail for 2 years for a nasty comment on social media because she was worried for her child, and even removed the comment a couple of hours later after reflecting on it, when her anger had subsided. I have heard horrendous numbers for arrests of people for hurty words on the Internet. This is dystopian. What next? Minority Report?

    Kweir Harmer tells JD Vance that the UK respects free speech ... that was misinformation.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not for children

    The online safety act is not to protect children, that is the cover story, it is to protect power and those who have it.

    1. TechGeekUK

      Re: Not for children

      Exactly. This is how Starmer has arrested over 400 people over social media posts when there are rape gangs being allowed to operate with impunity…

  16. tiggity Silver badge

    Worth noting that the police did not reveal that Rudakubana was neither Muslim or a recent immigrant - had they done so it may have been helpful in reducing inaccurate information spread

    Not disclosed

    In the absence of information, then inaccurate rumours are likely to spread (plenty of people will make racist assumptions of his religion, even though majority (approx 2/3 ) of black Britons are Christian based on census data)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like