X Draws Criticism Over Refusal to Remove Racist Posts Targeting UK Politicians
Social media platform X faces global criticism after declining to remove numerous racist posts, including the N-word, targeting prominent UK politicians like Kemi Badenoch. Researchers from British Future reported 30 such instances, with X largely refusing action unless posts were explicitly flagged as illegal under the UK's Online Safety Act, raising concerns about its content moderation policies worldwide.
Key points
- Social media platform X refused to remove a majority of 30 reported posts containing racist slurs, including the N-word, directed at UK politician Kemi Badenoch.
- British Future, a social inclusion think tank, reported these posts as "hate, abuse or harassment" but X acted only on two instances after direct intervention.
- X reportedly takes action primarily when posts are flagged as illegal under the UK’s Online Safety Act, restricting visibility only within the UK while remaining accessible globally.
- Critics argue X's policy implies it does not categorize such content as "hate" unless legally compelled, sparking debate over its global content moderation standards.
- The incident highlights ongoing concerns regarding the platform's approach to combating online racism and hate speech since its acquisition by Elon Musk.
The social media platform X, formerly Twitter, is facing significant backlash for its handling of racist content targeting UK politicians. A recent report by the British Future think tank highlighted X's refusal to remove dozens of posts containing severe racial slurs, including the N-word, directed at figures like Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch. This situation has ignited a debate over X's content moderation policies and its commitment to combating online hate speech.
British Future researchers documented 30 specific posts from this year, all of which called Badenoch the N-word. Despite being reported through X’s standard "hate, abuse or harassment" channels, the platform declined to take action in the majority of these cases. X’s internal policy reportedly dictates that it primarily intervenes when content is flagged as illegal under the UK’s Online Safety Act. Even then, any visibility restrictions are typically limited to the UK, meaning the posts remain viewable in other countries.
This selective approach to content removal drew sharp criticism from British Future. The organization's director, Sunder Katwala, had to directly contact X to prompt action on just two of the 30 reported posts. Avaes Mohammad, a researcher involved in the project, suggested that X does not inherently categorize such racist remarks as "hate" unless they are explicitly reported as illegal. Critics further point to X's broader moderation strategies since its acquisition by Elon Musk, noting concerns about the platform's amplification of certain narratives.
The incident underscores a growing international concern about how major social media platforms balance free speech with the need to protect users from hate speech and abuse. X’s stance on these reported racist posts suggests a policy framework that may require content to meet a specific legal threshold rather than a broader ethical one for removal, raising questions about its effectiveness in fostering a safe online environment globally.
Sources
The WireByte editorial team synthesises technology news from multiple primary sources, verifies the facts, and links every source. Articles are produced with AI assistance and reviewed under our editorial policy.