On July 29, 2024, a horrific event that has left an indelible mark on the British collective consciousness took place in Southport, Merseyside. Axel Rudakubana took the lives of three children, all under the age of ten, at a Taylor Swift dance class.
In the hours following this tragedy, misinformation began to circulate widely on social media, particularly among far-right factions, suggesting that the assailant was a Muslim migrant named Ali Al-Shakati. By 3 PM the following day, this false narrative had been mentioned over 30,000 times on X, with the platform’s algorithm even promoting it as a “trending topic.”
This surge of misinformation fueled a violent march in Southport organized by far-right groups, which devolved into chaos. Participants hurled bricks and bottles at a nearby mosque and set fire to vehicles, including police vans dispatched to protect the site. The violence quickly escalated, affecting mosques and shelters for asylum seekers across the UK. When such targets were unavailable, rioters resorted to vandalizing libraries, Citizens Advice Bureaus, and cars belonging to care workers. Many immigration lawyers faced death threats and fled their communities in fear.
In the subsequent weeks, attention turned to the role of social media in inciting such violence. The rapid dissemination of false information on platforms like X played a significant role in creating unfounded accusations regarding the attacks’ perpetrator. In response, the government implemented stricter penalties for those spreading racial hatred and dangerous misinformation online.
Despite widespread discussions on the dangers of misinformation, there’s been limited exploration of its underlying causes, which may run deeper than many acknowledge.
### The Psychology of Misinformation
“Undoubtedly, misinformation was crucial,” states Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist at the University of Bristol with expertise in this area. “The specific falsehoods propagated online closely correlated with the violent actions taken by the rioters, making it challenging to dismiss.”
However, direct causal links like this are rare in the complicated information landscape we navigate today. Walter Scheirer, author of “A History of Fake Things on the Internet,” points out that misinformation has always been a part of human communication. “Storytelling has been a fundamental way for us to convey ideas,” he notes, adding that social media vastly increases the audience’s size and credibility of any voice, effectively amplifying misinformation.
According to Karen Douglas, a conspiracy theory psychologist at the University of Kent, certain psychological needs drive individuals toward these narratives. The events surrounding the Southport attacks appeal to both epistemic desires for clarity and existential needs for safety and control. “People seek easy explanations for complex events, and when they encounter uncertainty, they often gravitate toward conspiracy theories,” she explains. “Once such theories take hold, they’re tough to dispel, particularly when the facts remain unclear.”
### Accelerationist Tendencies
Social media accelerates the spread of these narratives, creating a “false consensus” among users, according to Lewandowsky. By connecting like-minded individuals across great distances, social media can amplify the impression that widespread belief exists for certain views. “People are more likely to act on their beliefs when they feel others share them,” he adds.
For instance, a neo-Nazi from Finland was linked to the violence in Southport as an organizer on Telegram, where much of the far-right activism was coordinated. Moreover, social media platforms thrive on engagement, often prioritizing content that stirs outrage or anger, which can undermine democratic society.
The scale of current social media exceeds anything imagined in the early internet days. Scheirer notes that while niche communities existed previously, today’s open environment allows messages to rapidly gain global attention. “A lot of my research focuses on envisioning a less hostile internet, which may involve stepping back from large global social media services that don’t contribute positively,” he explains.
Policy decisions by these platforms also played a role in the incident. Joe Mulhall, director of research at Hope Not Hate, highlights the reinstatement of controversial figures like Andrew Tate and Tommy Robinson on X, who have large followings that spread misinformation related to the Southport attacks. “Robinson’s influence has grown significantly since his account was restored, with his demonstrations attracting tens of thousands,” he notes.
### The Political Context Matters
Several experts emphasize that while social media was instrumental in igniting the violence, the underlying social climate allowed these incidents to escalate. Research from the Centre for Media Monitoring shows that nearly 60% of British media coverage concerning Islam is negative, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, particularly in publications like The Mail on Sunday.
Academics have found that biased media narratives can bolster support for populist right-wing parties, indicating a significant correlation between media rhetoric and the emergence of hate crimes in the UK. “It’s frustrating to see the media focus solely on social media while ignoring the political context that has evolved over the past 15 years in the UK,” remarks Lewandowsky. “Understanding the persistent negative narratives from tabloid media and past government rhetoric sheds light on how such volatile events are not surprising but rather a direct outcome of this context.”
As society grapples with the reverberations of these catastrophic riots, it is crucial to address the more profound questions of accountability and responsibility.