Big Tech is stoking unrest in the UK. Why?
ft.com
ft.com
The problem is that the conservative and traditional right aren't too popular, so they need to go for the far-right. Those parties are in full MAGA-mode, focusing on things like immigration. It is so, so much easier to sway public opinion by blowing up incidents involving immigrants, than to convince the public that they should accept reduction or degradation of services due to tax cuts.
Far-right politicians discovered some time ago that they can straight up lie through their teeth, and face zero consequences. And those lies will propagate through social media, and people will accept them as facts.
It seems like critical thinking among huge parts of the population is considerably down. I've heard seemingly smart people I know regurgitate lies they've picked up on social media, which they could have fact checked in 30 seconds.
Social media seems to basically be a way of running A/B testing on the population until you find enough folks vulnerable to some sort of powerful misconception that serves your purpose.
For the SM network "purpose" means engagement, but it turns out that (to our disadvantage) it also serves the purposes of an army of grifters, opportunists and power mad sociopaths who are taking over the world. Once again (think the 1930s) it turns out mastery of new media technologies in the hands of bad people has consequences.
As techies, building productive rather than destructive media (and AI is the next "media" of consequence) really ought to be top of agenda.
That's just not mercenary enough. Techies will build the stuff they're getting paid to build. And the bad guys pay more.
> These apparently disparate events all feature one obvious commonality: race. In each case, the riots were sparked by an act of violence in which the victim(s) were white and the attackers were not. The context: these events were focused largely in ethnically diverse working-class neighbourhoods, communities where resources are stretched.
I know the author is smart and informed enough to see the parallels between this and a number of high-profile incidents in the past decade. There's an increasingly widespread idea that this is simply how a wise person should see interracial crime, not as a series of tragic individual incidents but as attacks on the whole of Group X by the whole of Group Y. The idea has achieved enough prominence that it's starting to overcome the hard-fought taboo on white identitarianism, and now for the first time in decades we have to deal with it as an open political force.
I emphasize that white identitarianism is a bad ideology, incompatible with many of the nice things we enjoy about the modern world, and we have to defeat rather than accommodate it. But defeating it requires taking a serious look at the factors that allow it to grow.
See also: antisemitism in Nazi Germany. I’m sure some Jewish people committed serious crimes against non-Jewish Germans. But that was incidental, not causal, to the vile propaganda that eventually led to the Holocaust.
I don't think he has any particular strategy in mind other than recklessly stirring up trouble in whatever way he can.
What Brits probably want more is to rejoin the EU, get back some leverage on the world scene and dig themselves our of the brexit hole
This is why it's completely barmy to suggest the average brit is fed up of immigration now, and I'm not sure why many people pointing that out are being heavily downvoted.
Even Sweden has introduced a new law against misbehaving immigrants (before you'd be risking your job just by speaking about the issue) just few days ago - https://www.reuters.com/world/sweden-passes-good-behaviour-l...
Your comment is unnecessary, unsubstantiated, doesn't add anything to the discussion and is just going to cause arguments in its current form.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/lo... (figure 2)
I think the real problem people are having is that a large amount of those immigrants are now no longer from the EU. But you have Brexit to blame for that.
People had a problem with EU immigration before Brexit so I do not think that is it.
I think most of the problem people have is with is to illegal immigration. The sentiment is "stop the boats". There are bizarre things happening in the asylum system. Do we need to consider claims made by people from the EU or the US? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/18/eu-citizens-hand... That is an extreme but there are lots of claims by people from safe countries.
Hard to complain here with the current trajectory.
B) leaving the EU did not mean that non-EU migration had to go up
C) immigration going down for one or two years doesn’t change the fact that millions of people are in the UK that most British people didn’t want to enter in the first place over a period of 15+ years
D) net immigration going down still means lots of people are entering the UK from elsewhere, while people from the same culture (ie grew up in the UK) are leaving which still changes the culture of the country
Note: I’m not saying I personally agree with any of those points but it’s clear what the issues are if you’re prepared to listen. There is opinion polling on all of this.
There certainly are forums for what you are suggesting though.
Like I said I’m not voicing my personal opinion.
But we can look at the polling data going back decades now on this issue. People were not happy when it was 50,000 net migration. At one point it hit 950,000.
Obviously the issues that people are concerned about on housing, on transport, on education and more aren’t resolved by reducing the flow for a couple of years.
My point is simply that these feelings have existed for a long time and the government has generally gone against what the electorate have asked for. Are you prepared to concede that point?
If so, then I think blaming it on big tech is a major stretch since this all happened before they had as much command of our attention.
The electorate repeatedly asked for those policies by voting the parties that enacted them. If they had other opinions, they didn't express them in any way that actually matters.
That's a feature of first-past-the-post elections. The system deliberately prioritizes regional representation over public opinion. If you want a parliament that prioritizes public opinion, you need a different electoral system.
I take your FPTP point, but when has the winning party under FPTP had a manifesto commitment to increase immigration?
Let’s just face facts. We might disagree personally but a majority of people have always voted against immigration and it’s regularly a top 3 issue. Often the top issue!
My impression is that Reform and the Greens are the only mainstream parties with an actual opinion on immigration. The other parties approach immigration from a more technocratic perspective. They form policies based on expected outcomes, regardless of what the people with opinions think about that kind of immigration. (Except to the extent those opinions influence the outcomes.)
As long as people keep voting Tories, Labour, or Lib Dems, they are effectively saying that immigration is not that important issue after all.
They won a big majority as a result.
Instead they took it from 185,000 to 950,000.
After that, they are now polling at all time lows (17%).
Both the Tories and Labour shifted their position several times in the 2010s, but few people based their votes on it. The only real change in policy came with the Brexit referendum, which was widely interpreted as being a desire for a shift from European to Commonwealth immigration.
The recent wave of concern is a new thing, and it remains to be seen whether it will continue now that the Brexit migration surge has tailed off or whether the online shit-stirring will be enough to sustain it for longer.
Maybe, but lack of it will definitely lose you one.
After you do that, then people might listen to you.
Today, a man stabbed four people in islamophobic rage: a ghastly crime. Where are the riots in protest of racist UK natives?
How many Brits do you know?
https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/12/30/how-the-take-ba... ( https://archive.ph/krvMU )
Meanwhile the government did not fix the housing issue, the cost of living disaster in London, the unemployment problem, ... and so on. And the central UK government forced small towns, cities and the like into bankruptcy. Now, in the UK, things like social support are financed by municipalities EXCEPT when it comes to immigrants. So, effectively, the government massively increased immigration, reduced social support and raised taxes on everybody except immigrants.
Then the government blamed very large youth services scandals, like the Rotherham scandal, on immigrants. This, despite the fact that these children had been taken from their homes by youth services and were under their custody AND despite the fact that youth services AND the police have been credibly accused of taking payoffs. Those people were definitely not immigrants, but they did not feature in the court proceedings "for some reason".
So government causes, to varying extents, large social problems. It ostensibly saves immigrants from these problems, and then the government itself blames immigrants for problems the government caused.
The problem here is not Twitter. I mean, they're not helping. But they're not the problem.
>Meanwhile the government did not fix the housing issue, the cost of living disaster in London, the unemployment problem, ... and so on.
These two things might be connected. It's almost like Brexit caused a series of large social problems.
That's not what any reasonable person would call "not delivered".
Here is the direct source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uks-points-ba...
(note: this was not loose enough for Johnson and with support from Rishi Sunak he loosened immigration policy even further. This was just the first shot)
at the same time. two things can be true. everything you mentioned plays a large part in why we’re in a bit of a mess as a country.
this is being exacerbated by big tech firms, especially social media ones. the fact that a lie from some tech bro with a large soapbox can travel all the way around the world in less than a second makes it very hard to have a reasoned discussion or debate about the problem.
"The government" at the time, embodied by David Cameron, were not pushing for Brexit. It, and Cameron, pushed for a vote, but with the expectation that the referendum would be defeated.
Fair. Although that particular term of art obfuscates some specific nuance. Namely that there were like 10 different conservative "the governments" that were referred to throughout spwa4's comment (i can't remember exactly how many different govts there were now and i cba to remember).
> "The government" at the time, embodied by David Cameron, were not pushing for Brexit.
Yes, although elements of the conservative party, some of which were part of David Cameron's government, were pushing for a referendum.
People voted for Brexit for a lot of reasons. The leaders of both Vote Leave and Leave.EU said they wanted more skilled immigration.
> raised taxes on everybody except immigrants.
immigrants pay the same taxes as everyone else plus extra taxes such as the NHS surcharge and huge visa renewal fees.
Retrospective analyses and Cameron's own account make clear that he saw advantage in calling for the referrendum with the expectation that it would be defeated. Example:
Cameron chose to commit to a vote, not because the country’s population was clamouring for one but because a significant minority of his own MPs ... were demanding that he do so...
Naturally, Cameron was aware he was running a risk – after all, his best friend in politics, Chancellor George Osborne, told him so again and again. But he thought he would win the vote....
<https://ukandeu.ac.uk/why-david-cameron-called-the-2016-refe...>
curl https://ghostarchive.org/chimurai4/4KevH.warc \
|grep -o articleBody\":\".*\",\"wordCount \
|sed 's/articleBody\":\"//;s/.\{42\}follow FT Weekend on Instagram.*\",\"wordCount//;s/\\n/@/g' \
|tr @ '\n' \
|fmtYour IP address and any optional headers you send, e.g., user-agent, will be returned in an HTML comment at the top of the response body
The problems in the UK are actually focused around sticky blobbyness caused by a) lack of integration, b) left vs right flavor of the moment causing further segregation and c) long term socioeconomic factors leading to govt(councils) fixing the problem in the cheapest way possible which is unfortunately high profile in the British high street by the public.
A lot of British are moving out of the city centers themselves (or already have) and into suburbs which leaves the cities hollowed out. Lack of footfall means lack of investment means decay and cheap housing/buildings.
All of this is a predicable recipe for friction but very short term British politics combined with a "not my problem" attitude prevalent in the nhs and public sectors means people doubled down in short term solutions for over a generation.
That combined with more hardship causes people to look at the biggest broken problem which is our immigration system needed reforming over 20yr+ ago and unfortunately this was locked into place by EU laws and policy (such ironically we pushed for, for other political reasons).
It's less of a grand conspiracy and more of the dominoes we're set to fall this way after dragging us out of the 80s without fixing anything and then the post recession being used to fuel boom and growth vs fixing underlying issues at a national level.
The UK's stance goes right against the values and goals these billionaires want and that's basically to do whatever they want without recourse. What better way to sow diversion than to stoke civil unrest and cause change to the systems that stand in their way.
It was baked in right from the start. We need to understand on a societal level how this happens.
The blame lies with Errol and Maye, who are absolutely fucking awful people (particularly Errol, a man even Elon describes as despicable) who should never have had children, and who are responsible for the early childhood trauma and neglect etc. that turned Elon into a textbook malignant narcissist.
We would pity that man if he were not so destructive, because he is broken in a way that nobody can fix. Part of me does pity him.
And FWIW I do believe that at his best, he fights against this — he is clearly aware of who broke him and how, and I do think that at his best he is trying to build things for people rather than surrender to hating everyone because they cannot give him enough love to fill the hole inside.
At his worst, which is now, he's just a malevolent force — a textbook Bond villain. He will only get worse as he attracts more hatred he cannot unsee.
It's the same for Donald Trump (broken by evil, evil parents) and Andrew Tate (broken by an evil, cruel father at the very least.)
NOT proposing that as a fix! But society at large would do well to ask why we let such extreme wealth (and with that: power) concentrate in the hands of so few individuals.
These aren't demi-gods! These are people with all the failings & weaknesses regular folks have. Spread the risk ffs.