Just a few days’ later, Harvard executives shut it down, marking one of the few times there was both the will and the capability to remove offensive online content.

But the world is much bigger than a Harvard campus, and the internet, well, it’s taken off somewhat.

For fear of accusations of censorship and alienating users, social media platforms seem reluctant to strictly regulate harmful content. Maybe it’s too complex or costly, or maybe they’re intentionally lax?

The consequences of such inaction have been no more apparent than in the wake of the horrific Southport attack. Since that fateful day, the UK has faced a much greater, more serious groundswell of harmful, far-right online content, reminiscent of the Capitol Hill riots in 2021, that has whipped up violent disorder across our cities and towns.

According to the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, within hours of the attack, a false name circulating online had received more than 30,000 mentions on X alone. While this spread was largely organic, algorithms and bots, supposedly linked to state-backed actors, amplified the false information.

Yet, sadly, this time around, no one seems to have either the will or perhaps the capability to regulate such content. Instead, agitator-in-chief Elon Musk, seems intent on fanning the flames.

For an industry so dedicated to building community, social media companies seem to be doing little to protect it (ironic, given Musk’s comments). But a community without rules is no community at all.

The Goldilocks Dilemma As social media giants continue to skirt the edges of stringent regulation, the underlying threat looms large: without oversight, these platforms risk losing both public trust and substantial revenue – evidenced by the recent surge in Bluesky signups following Musk’s comments.

Yet, what if the direction of these platforms is no mistake? Abandoning them might seem a solution, yet it could backfire, creating an unchecked environment that could potentially inflict greater damage to our communities.

The ‘Great Experiment’ with social media’s freedom and control continues, raising concerns about the ultimate cost to society. The pressing question remains: how far are governments willing to go?

In the UK, the newly enacted Online Safety Act provides regulatory powers to Ofcom, though its real-world enforcement remains tepid. The act has struggled to address the liability of platforms for lawful yet harmful content, particularly when users exploit these platforms to broadcast criminal activities – a paradoxical aid to justice that so far has helped charge 466 people over the riots.

As calls for more stringent regulation grow louder among Ministers, where to next for these platforms?

Social media platforms must now navigate the Goldilocks dilemma of self-regulation, striving for a balance that curtails harmful content without stifling free expression – neither too lenient nor too restrictive, but “just right” to maintain trust and functionality.

Social Utilities

What happens if they lack either the will or capability to navigate this dilemma on their own? Well, much like water and electricity, internet access, including social media, has become indispensable in our daily lives. Despite the many cautionary tales of public utility mismanagement, without robust self-regulation, social media companies may well face similar downfalls.

At an individual rights level, this might seem dire. However, if these companies cannot reliably foster safe, trustworthy environments conducive to a better informed and peaceful society, then society itself is left with scant alternatives.

By not stepping up, social media companies not only risk their own viability but also the societal fabric they’re woven into. As regulatory frameworks slowly catch up, the need to demonstrate responsibility grows ever more critical. Without a sustained commitment to safety and trust, the potential repercussions extend far beyond mere financial losses or reputational damage, affecting the very core of public trust and societal well-being.