Incitement to violence is a crime offline, so it must be prosecuted as a crime online.
In the wake of riots in Belfast and Southampton partly stoked by inflammatory posts on X and other platforms, former UK health secretary Wes Streeting has stepped beyond his government's cautious posture to demand that social media companies face criminal liability and bear the financial costs of the damage their amplified content helped cause. His call reflects a deepening tension in democratic societies between the speed of digital harm and the slowness of regulatory remedy. Where governments reach for process, some voices are beginning to reach for consequence.
- Posts on X — some amplified by the platform's own owner — named individuals, published addresses, and called for violent responses to a knife attack in Belfast and a police incident involving a teenager in Southampton.
- Wes Streeting has broken with his government's measured tone, demanding criminal prosecution of platform executives who knowingly promote violent content and direct financial contributions to riot rebuilding costs.
- The government's actual tools move at institutional pace: Ofcom's first compliance report from X is two months away, and a planned Online Safety Act amendment cannot take effect until mid-July at the earliest.
- The contrast is sharp — when X's AI tool generated sexualized images of children, Starmer threatened to block the platform and compliance came within days, raising questions about why similar urgency has not been applied to incitement to violence.
- Streeting's harder line positions him as a voice for tech accountability within Labour, signaling internal frustration and hinting at a political fault line that could widen if leadership questions resurface.
Wes Streeting, the former health secretary and quietly watched rival to Keir Starmer, has broken with the government's restrained approach to social media regulation. In a statement to the Guardian, he called for immediate action against X and other platforms that amplified calls for violence during recent riots — and went further than Downing Street has been willing to go: he wants the companies to pay for the damage.
The riots in Belfast erupted following a knife attack, fed in part by a wave of posts on X that urged violent responses. The pattern had appeared before in Southampton, where posts falsely named police officers involved in the arrest of Henry Nowak, a teenage student who died after being handcuffed. Some posts included home addresses and the words 'Wanted: dead or alive.' Far-right figures amplified the calls. X carried the content without apparent friction.
Streeting's argument is direct: incitement to violence is a crime offline and must be treated as one online. Executives who knowingly promote dangerous material should face criminal charges, and platforms should be made to contribute to the costs of rebuilding what their content helped destroy. He framed the broader struggle as resistance against 'broligarchs' — billionaire tech figures reshaping society and inspiring hatred.
The government's response, by contrast, moves through institutional channels. Ofcom holds enforcement powers under the existing Online Safety Act, but X's first quarterly compliance report is not due for two months. A planned amendment requiring faster removal of inflammatory content during crises must sit before parliament for 40 days before it can take effect — mid-July at the earliest.
The gap between urgency and process is made more visible by precedent. When X's Grok AI generated sexualized images of women and children, Starmer threatened to block the platform outright. X complied within days. Asked why similar pressure was absent in the face of riot incitement, Downing Street pointed to existing Ofcom enforcement and said platforms bear clear legal responsibilities. The machinery, for now, grinds on — and the platforms continue to operate under rules that have not yet proven equal to the harm they can carry.
Wes Streeting, the former health secretary widely seen as a potential rival to Keir Starmer, has broken ranks with the government's cautious approach to social media regulation. In an exclusive statement to the Guardian, he called for immediate action against X and other platforms that have amplified calls for violence, going further than anything Downing Street has signaled it will do. His demand: make the companies pay for the damage.
The backdrop is the recent riots in Belfast, which erupted after a knife attack and were fueled in part by a torrent of posts on X—including some from owner Elon Musk—urging angry responses. The pattern is not new. Months earlier, similar incitement preceded disorder in Southampton, where posts falsely named police officers involved in the arrest of Henry Nowak, a teenage student who died after being handcuffed. Some of those posts included addresses and messages reading "Wanted: dead or alive." Far-right figures like Tommy Robinson amplified the calls to protest. X carried the inflammatory content without apparent friction.
Streeting's position is blunt. "Incitement to violence is a crime in the offline world so it must be prosecuted as a crime in the online world," he said. If platform executives are knowingly promoting dangerous material, they should face criminal charges. The companies themselves should be forced to contribute to the costs of rebuilding and cleaning up after the riots they helped spark. He framed this as standing against what he called "broligarchs"—a term for billionaire tech executives wielding outsized cultural power—who are reshaping society and inspiring hatred.
The government's actual response, by contrast, is measured and slow. Downing Street has deferred to Ofcom, the media regulator, to enforce the Online Safety Act, which already requires platforms to remove posts that break the law, including incitement to violence. Ofcom has the power to fine companies for breaches. But the first quarterly compliance report from X is not due for at least two months. Ministers are also planning to amend the Online Safety Act to require faster removal of inflammatory content during riots or other crises, but that amendment must sit before parliament for 40 days before taking effect—meaning mid-July at the earliest.
The contrast with how the government has handled other platform crises is striking. When X's Grok AI tool was flooded with sexualized images of women and children, Starmer threatened to block the platform in the UK unless it acted urgently. X complied within days. When asked why similar pressure was not being applied to posts inciting violence in Belfast and Southampton, Downing Street pointed to existing Ofcom enforcement and said platforms have clear legal responsibilities to remove illegal content. A No. 10 spokesperson condemned anyone stoking division or inciting violence and said the government would not tolerate platforms being used to spread harm.
Streeting's intervention signals frustration within Labour's ranks over the pace and force of the government's response. He is positioning himself as willing to take a harder line than Starmer on tech accountability—a posture that could matter if leadership questions emerge. For now, though, the regulatory machinery grinds slowly, and the platforms continue to operate under rules that have so far proven insufficient to prevent the spread of content that precedes real-world violence.
Citas Notables
If platforms are knowingly promoting this dangerous content, bosses should face criminal action and the companies should be made to pay the costs of cleaning up and rebuilding.— Wes Streeting
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does Streeting think making platforms pay for riot damage would actually work? Isn't that just symbolic?
It's not just symbolic—it's about creating a financial incentive to moderate content before violence happens. Right now, the cost of a riot falls on the public. If platforms had to pay, they'd have reason to act faster than waiting for regulators.
But X is already worth trillions. Would a fine actually change their behavior?
That's the real question. Streeting seems to think criminal liability for executives—not just fines for companies—would matter more. Personal consequences, not corporate ones.
Why is the government moving so slowly then?
Partly caution. Ofcom has legal authority, and Downing Street doesn't want to be seen as overreaching. Partly also that regulatory processes are built to be deliberate. But Streeting's point is that deliberate doesn't work when violence is happening now.
The Grok AI situation moved fast. What was different there?
Sexual abuse material involving children. That triggered an immediate threat of blocking. Violence incitement, apparently, gets treated as a regulatory matter rather than an emergency.
Is Streeting actually challenging Starmer here, or just pushing policy?
Both. He's positioning himself as tougher on tech than the current leadership. If there's a leadership contest down the line, this kind of statement matters. But he's also genuinely frustrated that the government isn't matching its rhetoric with action.