Musk’s X is platform where it is easiest to find Hamas content, watchdog says
Researchers found terror propaganda on X within 10 minutes, as major industry group reportedly sees billionaire owner as thwarting efforts to crack down on extremism
A British antisemitism watchdog has found that X, formerly Twitter, is the easiest major platform on which to find terror propaganda videos from Hamas and other terror groups, according to a report in the Sunday Times.
The site has reportedly been a hotbed of extremist content during the 10 months since Hamas launched its October 7 attack on Israel, when thousands of terrorists killed some 1,200 people and took 251 hostages, starting the ongoing war in Gaza.
Researchers from the Community Security Trust (CST) managed to find propaganda videos from Hamas and fellow terror groups Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad on X within 10 minutes, the Times reported.
Speaking to the newspaper, a CST representative reported the additional presence of far-right terror videos, including footage of the 2019 Christchurch shooting, when a white supremacist murdered 51 people at a mosque and Islamic center in New Zealand.
“The amount of extreme, hateful content on X has increased dramatically over the past year. It has become the easiest platform to find Hamas terrorist videos since the October 7 attack, alongside neo-Nazi incitement, vicious antisemitism and the harmful spreading of false information, all amplified via paid-for blue tick accounts.”
Users on X can pay to have a blue check-mark appear next to their name on the website, a symbol that used to indicate a user had verified his identity with moderators, but which, since the company’s takeover by billionaire Elon Musk in 2022, can be purchased by anyone.
The concern over extremist content on X has reportedly reached the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), a coalition made up of tech platforms, civil society organizations, and government entities that defines its mission as preventing “terrorists and violent extremists from exploiting digital platforms.”
X, then called Twitter, was a founding member of the taskforce — which also includes Google, Meta, and Microsoft — before its takeover by Musk.
But after a sharp change in the tone and policy of X’s leadership following the acquisition, other GIFCT members feel that the company’s presence in the forum “is undermining the organization’s credibility,” according to the report in the Sunday Times.
An X representative quoted by the Times said, however, that “X remains fully committed to GIFCT’s mission and our continued membership.”
GIFCT maintains a shared database of terror-related content that participating platforms automatically remove. According to the Times, it appears that X has stopped contributing new content to the database or removing content identified on it.
Elon Musk has taken a hardline approach to free speech since he took over X, bringing down the level of moderation applied to content perceived as extremist or inaccurate, and assailing the company’s former management for what he has painted as collusion with the US government to censor political opponents.
Recently, amid far-right riots in the United Kingdom following a deadly knife attack that killed three children, Musk has publicly criticized British authorities for threatening to prosecute those believed to be whipping up hatred online.
Neil Basu, the former head of counterterrorism in London’s Metropolitan Police, called on GIFCT to remove X from its board “until they control terror content on their platform,” adding, “Freedom of speech is not freedom to do harm and they are in danger of turning humankind’s greatest invention into its worst.”
Removing X from the GIFCT board “would also send a message that the time has come for them to face the fact that they are now publishers, not platforms, and should be treated as such and held to account for what they push,” Basu said.
Publishers, such as newspapers or television stations, are legally accountable for the content they put out. Social networks, by contrast, have historically been treated instead as “platforms” that, while providing the infrastructure for users to share their own messages, are not responsible for what those users say.
The distinction between publishers and platforms is at the heart of controversy over the regulation of social networks, though some civil liberties groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, reject the distinction as “specious.”
In 2023, the UK passed the Online Safety Act, criminalizing certain online activity, such as sharing sexual images of people without their consent and intentionally exposing epileptic people to content designed to cause them seizures.
The law also created new offenses for “threatening communications” and “sending false information intended to cause non-trivial harm.” Social networks will be obligated once the law comes into effect next year to crack down on illegal content and report on their efforts to a government watchdog.
Companies that fail to comply can face fines of up to 10 percent of their global revenue, or £18 million (almost $23 million), whichever is more. Social networks could even be blocked in the UK or see senior executives prosecuted.
