Judicial sentencing has begun for the individuals involved in the race riots that erupted in the United Kingdom in August. One of the harshest punishments handed down was a sentence of nine years in prison to a British man who took part in starting a fire outside a hotel housing more than 200 asylum seekers. These harsh punishments are expected to be something of a deterrent towards future acts of far-right bigotry and hate-related crimes.
In the wake of these (rightfully) harsh sentences, it is worth questioning whether these severe penalties truly address Britain’s views on race, immigration, and free speech. As LUXUO reported last month, the series of race riots that took place in the United Kingdom and Ireland was fueled by anti-immigrant rhetoric that escalated into attacks on people of colour. It was also reported that fake news channels on X helped to disseminate false information about the killing of three children in Southport.
Read More: Gen Z Extremism: How “Authenticity” Fuels Radical Views
Influential media figures such as Nigel Farage played a role in inflaming these tensions, particularly after he raised doubts about whether a 17-year-old boy involved in a mass stabbing in Southport was an asylum seeker often stating “I don’t know, I’m just asking questions”, as a means of “free speech” which one can assume would be used to cover any litigation he might face from potential defamation lawsuits. Political figures like Farage often use deliberately ambiguous language to sow division and incite unrest while carefully avoiding direct involvement in hate speech or incitement. Notably, these growing sentiments have resonated with the youth, some of whom participated in the riots and were seen attempting to forcibly enter the homes of black and brown families.
Read More: The Impact of Political Correctness and Commercialisation on Creativity
Echo Chambers and Algorithmic Radicalisation
British media outlets such as The Sun, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Express and The Telegraph often create echo chambers by consistently pushing similar agendas, reinforcing existing (often right-wing) beliefs among their audiences rather than encouraging diverse perspectives. The use of sensationalised stories splashed across front pages priorities the attraction of eyeballs leading to the oversimplification of complex issues. Then, there is the use of provocative headlines to drive traffic that sees engagement come before accuracy, fostering a one-sided view and negatively contributing to groupthink. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook (Meta) exacerbate this effect by amplifying popular opinions and creating feedback loops that intensify groupthink.
Read More: Opinion: Collective Consciousness is Not The Final Solution in Solving Global Issues
Many British media outlets have clear political or ideological biases, which can skew reporting and present information in a way that aligns with their agendas, discouraging critical thinking and reinforcing groupthink. This is further perpetuated by the concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few individuals (the likes of Rupert Murdoch), which leads to uniformity in reporting and the suppression of dissenting views.
Politicians and policymakers are known to be influenced by media-driven groupthink, resulting in decisions that reflect popular but potentially uninformed or misguided opinions. Simply put, British politicians often pander to right-wing voters by enforcing this harmful rhetoric if it guarantees they get to keep their seats in Parliament even if they do not believe in those ideologies themselves. Former home secretary Suella Braverman was a proponent of this, often making divisive statements against immigrants when her parents migrated to the United Kingdom in the 1960s from Kenya and Mauritius. Minority populations like asylum seekers or brown and black immigrants are often depicted as the “boogieman” of sorts who utilise taxpayer funds while ignoring the reality of the nation’s wealth disparity.
This was particularly seen during the Brexit referendum where politicians often perpetuated the (now inaccurate) prediction that the British economy would be stronger once the United Kingdom left the European Union alongside the rhetoric that foreigners were taking away jobs from the local British citizens. Social media platforms — particularly Facebook — played a significant role in amplifying pro-Leave and pro-Remain echo chambers. Algorithms prioritise sensational and emotionally charged content, reinforcing existing biases and intensifying groupthink on both sides. This contributed to a polarized debate and — for some — a distorted view of the implications of Brexit. Alternative or minority viewpoints are often marginalised or ignored in mainstream media, leading to a narrow perspective that promotes groupthink. Case in point, Palestine. The Human Rights Watch reports that Meta has played a systemic role in suppressing support of Palestine and Palestinian human rights on Instagram and Facebook.
Social media users across Facebook, Instagram, X, YouTube and TikTok are accusing the platforms of censoring accounts or actively reducing the reach of pro-Palestine content — a practice known as shadowbanning — according to Al Jazeera. Posts containing hashtags like “#FreePalestine”, “#IStandWithPalestine” or the word “genocide” are being hidden by the platforms while some users have also accused Instagram, of taking down content that mentions Palestine for violating “community guidelines”.
In June, NBC News reported on research conducted by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a London-based nonprofit organisation that researched extremism within video recommendations. According to the report, the study noted that YouTube’s recommendation algorithm “drove 70 percent of all video views”. In one study, Fox News emerged as the top recommended news channel for both child and adult profiles interested in “male lifestyle guru” content, despite neither profile having viewed Fox News during the persona development phase. This highlights the significant influence of recommendation algorithms on media consumption patterns in shaping and directing user preferences in ways that users may not have explicitly consented to, particularly for the younger generation who can be easily swayed by algorithmically-driven content. This underscores the potential for algorithms to perpetuate and amplify certain media narratives, potentially influencing viewers’ exposure to and perceptions of content.
Read More: What is “Threads” and Why is Twitter Threatened?
For more on the latest in culture and opinion reads, click here.
