this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2026
508 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
85515 readers
4276 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Except the number cited isn't for social media posts. It's all arrests under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which covers far more than social media (as you can probably guess, given social media didn't even exist in 1988.)
That includes arrests for threatening phonecalls, sharing indecent images (child porn and the like - you lot who bang on about Epstein all the time are meant to be against that, right?) - and not only on social media - stalking and harrasment adjacent offenses like nuisance calling, and a whole host of other offences completely unrelated to social media.
In other words, it's complete bollocks. And all from one woeful newspaper 'story'. Congratulations for providing an excellent example of how one right-wing rag with an agenda can confect a story, then have it cited by a load of other 'sources' that don't do anything beyond cutting and pasting the original lie, and then suddenly you've made a whole new fact.
Fair enough. The sources I cited aren’t exactly going above and beyond to prove the claim of 30 people arrested per day by linking to any raw data sources, or even claiming they themselves reviewed the arrest data. I’d like to at least see a day’s worth of examples of people who were arrested and why. It’s quite possible it would mostly be threats of violence and other legitimate reasons for arrests like you stated.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't appear to be collected in a systematic way across the whole country, but one police force - West Yorkshire Police - does have data going back long enough for a trend, at least for the arrests on the Communications Act.
For West Yorkshire Police, the arrests under the Communications Act are pretty much constant from 2008 (around 200) to 2024 (actually a little lower, 152).
Given the changes in social media penetration over that time (things like the iPhone and Twitter barely even existed in 2008,) for the rate of arrests to have remained constant throughout I would suggest strongly indicates that there is a very strong element of "absolutely nothing to do with social media" in those numbers The Times quoted.
The numbers for the Malicious Communications Act are less easy to parse, because they don't go back far enough, and also they show a massive drop in the last 6 years.
All of this of course could be slightly moot - because in 2023, a new act (the Online Safety Act) was passed which specifically relates to "arresting people for their social media posts" [TM Musk et al].
In 2024, West Yorkshire Police made 5 (five! Count them! Hell, you could invite them all round to your house for dinner) arrests under the OSA.
"Thousands" of people are categorically not being arrested for their social media posts in the UK every year. Or even every decade.