Connect with us

Business

How Online Hatred Toward Migrants Spurs Real-World Violence

Published

on

How Online Hatred Toward Migrants Spurs Real-World Violence

On New Year’s Day, a Telegram user in Portugal posted an ominous message that the wait was over. This was the year to stop the “Population Replacement” — a conspiracy theory that immigrants of color are taking over.

In the days and weeks that followed, thousands more posts like it appeared on Telegram, X, YouTube and elsewhere — with increasingly racist and violent overtones. They called for migrants to leave, accusing them of committing crimes and stealing jobs.

Advertisement

Soon, a Portuguese extremist group organized a raucous protest in Lisbon. People chanted parts of the national anthem that calls on citizens to take up arms. More protests followed.

Advertisement

In early May, a group of men assaulted migrants in Porto in two attacks, beating several with clubs in their home. One escaped by leaping from a window. A video circulated on local media after showed blood splattered throughout the apartment.

The violence that flared in Porto was neither spontaneous nor unexpected. It followed months of vitriol on social media that came not only from disgruntled Portuguese, but also from prominent far-right figures inside and outside the country.

The posts linked a global network of agitators who have seized on the influx of migrants seeking political asylum or economic opportunity to build seething followings online.

Advertisement

Ideas like this once festered on the fringes of the internet but are now increasingly breaking through to the mainstream on social media platforms like X and Telegram, which have done little to moderate the content. The ability to clip and share videos and to instantly translate foreign languages has also helped make it easier to spread hateful material across geographic and cultural divides.

These networks peddle a toxic brew of bigotry online that officials and researchers say is increasingly stoking violence offline — from riots in Britain to bloody attacks in Germany and arson in Ireland. Establishing a direct correlation between online language and events in the real world is difficult, but researchers and officials said the evidence of a link has become overwhelming.

“What is said ultimately will shape what people will do,” said Rita Guerra, a researcher at the Center for Psychological Research and Social Intervention in Lisbon who studies online hate in Portugal. “That is why this is very concerning, not just for Portugal and Europe, but worldwide.”

‘Fuel for a Fire’

In Britain, false and inflammatory posts by white supremacists and anti-Muslim agitators set off clashes across the country after the stabbing deaths of three children in Southport, a town outside Liverpool, on July 29.

Advertisement

Posts on TikTok, YouTube, X and Telegram circulated false or unsubstantiated claims that the attacker was a Syrian refugee, when in fact he was from Wales.

July 29

Not much info yet, but it will be a Muslim culprit followed by violence protests.⚡️

July 30

British patriots in Southport want justice for little girls who lost their lives. Patience is over.

Advertisement

Whoever riots gets heard, the British need hearing.

July 31
  • 10:31 a.m.
  • The Netherlands

How many more white children have to die before we take action?

Aug. 1

This is how the police treat white people who are protesting over the murder of three little girls.

Advertisement

Note: Hashtags have been removed from some posts. All times are Greenwich Mean Time.

Since then, unrest has convulsed Britain. Protesters clashed with the police, lit cars on fire and ransacked businesses.


Source: PA Media, via Agence France-Presse

Advertisement

“They used Southport as fuel for a fire,” Lee Marsh, a Liverpool resident, said at a demonstration against racism on Wednesday. “The only thing that should have happened online,” he added, “was support and respect for those families of the girls killed.”

The incendiary language inundated social media platforms despite their own policies prohibiting it, according to the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a nonprofit research organization in London that has tracked the fallout of the stabbing. The companies, the organization said, lack “an understanding of the real-world impacts of misinformation” that appears on their platforms.

Elon Musk, the owner of X, himself weighed in on the events, declaring last weekend that “civil war is inevitable” in Britain.

Since Mr. Musk bought the platform, then known as Twitter, in 2022, the company has reinstated far-right figures who had previously been banned, leading to a sharp increase in hateful content on the platform. Mr. Musk has also used it to rail against governments he says have failed to bring immigration under control.

Representatives from Meta, X and TikTok did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesman for Telegram said “calls to violence are explicitly forbidden” by its terms of service.

Advertisement

YouTube, when contacted by The New York Times about this article, suspended the account of Grupo 1143, the extremist group organizing protests in Portugal. “Any content that promotes violence or encourages hatred of people based on attributes like ethnicity or immigration status is not allowed on our platform,” the company said, “and we’re committed to removing this content as quickly as possible.”

Immersed in Rabid Content

Racism and xenophobia have haunted the internet since the earliest dial-up connections, but they have, by most accounts, become pervasive in recent years.

Online influencers have weaponized the issue of immigration with disinformation and racist conspiracy theories, including one that predicts a “great replacement” of white people by nefarious global forces.

“Europe has been invaded by the world’s scum, without a single bullet being fired,” Tommy Robinson, one of Britain’s most notorious activists, wrote on X days before the attack in Porto in May. The post included a video with a voice over in Portuguese and subtitles in French.

Advertisement

Right-wing political parties in Europe have surged with the use of similar anti-immigrant language. In the United States, Donald J. Trump has made the influx of refugees and migrants a central issue in this year’s presidential election.

Russia, too, has used immigration as a cudgel in its propaganda in Europe, amplifying incidents and protests, including the recent unrest in Britain, through its state media and covert bot networks.

European governments have stepped up warnings about the threat of extremism online, but they are struggling to find effective ways to respond while respecting freedoms of speech and assembly.

In the Netherlands, the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security warned last year that people “can immerse themselves in rabid content for years, until an isolated incident incites them to concrete violence.”

After the recent violence in Britain, the government urged the public to “think before you post,” warning that hateful messages could amount to a crime. On Friday, a man from Leeds was sentenced to 20 months for posts on Facebook calling for attacks on a hotel housing asylum seekers. Among hundreds of people arrested was a 55-year-old woman from near Chester for a social media post said to “stir up racial hatred.”

Advertisement

“The internet has evolved from a passive cheering section to the active shaping and fomenting of ethnic and sectarian conflict,” said Joel Finkelstein, a founder of the Network Contagion Research Institute in New Jersey, which studies threats online. “This new reality poses a profound challenge to democracies, which find themselves ill-equipped to manage the rapid dissemination of these dangerous ideas.”

A Front Line

In 2023, researchers from the Network Contagion Research Institute and two universities documented a hashtag was going viral across Ireland that said the country was full. It was used to promote demonstrations in cities across the country against efforts to build housing for migrants.

One of the researchers, Tony Craig of Staffordshire University in England, warned that the campaign would inevitably lead to violence. “It’s going to get worse,” he said last summer.

He was prescient.

Advertisement

In November, a homeless immigrant from Algeria stabbed three children and their guardian in Dublin. Within hours, the internet churned with calls for protest — and retaliation — and soon hundreds rioted on Parnell Square in the city’s center. It was the worst public unrest in Ireland in years.

After the riots, the government vowed to toughen the law against incitement. “It’s not up-to-date for the social media age,” Leo Varadkar, the prime minister then, said.

The challenge is that the incitement also comes from outside their borders. Only 14 percent of posts on X about the stabbings and resulting outcry originated in Ireland, according to an analysis by Next Dim, a company that tracks activity online.

Since then, accounts online have continued to foment anger. This year, agitators circulated maps with the locations of migrant housing, which have become targets. Outside one center in June, protesters slit the throats of three pigs as a threat to Muslims believed to be living there.

Last month, a former paint factory being converted to housing for asylum seekers in Coolock, near Dublin, became a new flashpoint.

Advertisement
March 18

All of Coolock needs to come out and stop this and protect our children.

May 22

🔥🇮🇪🔥🇮🇪🔥🇮🇪🔥🇮🇪🔥🇮🇪🔥🇮🇪 Lets Give Them Hell

July 15

Ireland burns as they continue to fiddle about with Hate Speech legislation.

Advertisement

Note: Hashtags have been removed from some posts. All times are Greenwich Mean Time. • Source: StringersHub, via Reuters (Video)

As anger about the project spread online, arsonists twice attacked the building. On July 19, hundreds gathered nearby, leading to a violent confrontation with the police.

Driving the Conversation From Afar

Advertisement

A leading figure in the growing chorus of bigotry online has been Mr. Robinson, the notorious activist whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.

Mr. Robinson has been known for his ardent anti-immigration views for more than a decade, but by 2019 he faced bans or other restrictions on Facebook, Instagram, X and YouTube for spreading hateful content and struggled to find much of an audience online.

Then, last November, X reinstated Mr. Robinson. (“I’m back!” his profile declares). He now has more than 960,000 followers on the platform.

Mr. Robinson’s prolific posts are widely shared across like-minded accounts on other platforms and in other countries.

An example of his reach was clear in March, when he reacted to news of a fire at a migrant housing center in Berlin. He posted a brief video clip on Telegram claiming that migrants had deliberately set fire to the center, located in the city’s old Tegel Airport, “in hope of securing better” accommodations.

Advertisement

His followers replied with a torrent of hateful and racist comments, according to an analysis by the SITE Intelligence Group. Though the cause of the fire remained unclear, the insinuation that it was intentional caromed from Britain to the Netherlands and Portugal and back to Germany.

March 12

We’ve seen this regularly across Europe, burning the facilities provided to them by the taxpayers in hope of securing better.


Note: All times are Central European Summer Time.

Advertisement

Joe Düker, a researcher at the Center for Monitoring, Analysis and Strategy, an organization in Germany that studies extremism, said Mr. Robinson’s post helped drive the narrative in Germany, where the authorities reported 31 violent crimes against migrants in the first three months of this year. An extremist group active in Austria and Germany, Generation Identity Europa, forwarded his post on Telegram to its own followers.

Asked whether he believes his social media posts contribute to violence, Mr. Robinson responded: “I believe the teachings in the Koran contribute to violence. Shall we ban it?”

Other figures have similar international reach, including Eva Vlaardingerbroek in the Netherlands, Martin Sellner in Austria and Francesca Totolo in Italy. They often amplify one another’s posts, forming a global echo chamber of hatred toward migrants.

“There isn’t enough of an appreciation of how transnational these networks are,” said Wendy Via, a founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, an organization in the United States that tracks the spread of racism.

‘Whoever riots gets heard’

Advertisement

In the initial hours after the stabbing attack in England, when little information was released by the authorities, agitators quickly stepped into the void.

July 29

Not much info yet, but it will be a Muslim culprit followed by violence protests

The attacker is alleged to be a Muslim immigrant

Advertisement
July 30

Attacker confirmed to be Muslim. Age 17. Came to UK by boat last year.


Note: Identifying information has been removed. All times are Greenwich Mean Time.

By the time officials said that the suspect was a 17-year-old British citizen from Wales, it was too late. Angry calls for protests had swept TikTok, Telegram and X, calling people into the streets. “Whoever riots gets heard,” Mr. Robinson declared. “The British need hearing.”

Advertisement

Source: PA Media, via Agence France-Press

One Telegram channel created to discuss the stabbing shared the address of 30 locations to target for protest. The platform blocked the channel, but only after it had swelled to more than 13,000 members.

“They won’t stop coming,” one member of the group said, “until you tell them.”

Advertisement

Business

Warner Bros. Discovery board faces pressure as activist investor threatens to vote no on Netflix deal

Published

on

Warner Bros. Discovery board faces pressure as activist investor threatens to vote no on Netflix deal

Activist investor Ancora Holdings Group is calling on the Warner Bros. Discovery board to consider a revised bid from Paramount Skydance and negotiate with the David Ellison-led company, or it says it will vote no on the proposed deal between Warner Bros. and Netflix.

The Cleveland-based investment management firm released a presentation Wednesday detailing why it believes Paramount’s latest offer could be a superior bid compared with the Netflix transaction.

Ancora said its stake in Warner Bros. Discovery is worth about $200 million, which would make its ownership less than 1% given the company’s $69.4-billion market cap.

Ancora cited uncertainty around the equity value and final debt allocation for the planned spinoff of Warner’s cable channels into a separate company as a factor that could change share valuation. The spinoff is still set to happen under the agreement with Netflix, as the streamer does not intend to buy the cable channels. Paramount has proposed buying the entire company.

The backing of David Ellison’s father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, was a sign of the Paramount bid’s “credibility and executability,” Ancora said, adding that it had concerns about the regulatory hurdles Netflix could face.

Advertisement

Senators grilled Netflix Co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos last week about potential antitrust issues related to its agreement to buy Warner Bros. Sarandos has said 80% of HBO Max subscribers in the U.S. also subscribe to Netflix and contended that a deal between the two would give the combined company 20% of the U.S. television streaming market, below the 30% threshold for a monopoly.

The investment management firm noted that Paramount is “reportedly viewed as the current administration’s ‘favored’ bidder — suggesting stronger political support,” a nod to the Ellison family’s friendly relationship with President Trump.

Trump has vacillated in his public statements on the deal. In December, he said he “would be involved” in his administration’s decision to approve any agreement, but last week, he said he “decided I shouldn’t be involved” and would leave it up to the Justice Department.

“Paramount’s latest offer has opened the door,” Ancora wrote in its presentation. “There is still a clear and immediately actionable path for the Hollywood ending that all [Warner] shareholders deserve.”

Ancora said it intends to vote no on the Netflix deal and that it also could seek to elect directors at the upcoming Warner shareholders meeting.

Advertisement

Warner said in a statement that its board and management team “have a proven track record of acting in the best interests of the Company and shareholders” and that they “remain resolute in our commitment to maximize value for shareholders.”

Ancora’s presentation does highlight “two primary questions as shareholders approach this deal,” said Alicia Reese, senior vice president of equity research for media and entertainment at Wedbush.

“The biggest question mark is what is Discovery Global worth?” she asked. “The second is how likely is Netflix to pass regulatory scrutiny?”

The firm’s opposition doesn’t necessarily mean the Warner board will change course, but if other significant shareholders take a similar stance, the board likely would need to “meaningfully and proactively engage further to seek more money,” said Corey Martin, a managing partner at the law firm Granderson Des Rochers.

“If I were Paramount … I would view this as a tea leaf that there might be a little bit of an opening here, to the extent we were to be aggressive,” he said. But, “if Paramount wants this company, it’s going to have to blow the Netflix bid out of the water so that there’s no question to the shareholders which bid represents the most value.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How Chipotle lost its sizzle

Published

on

How Chipotle lost its sizzle

Chipotle Mexican Grill, the Newport Beach-based chain known for its bursting burritos and lunch bowls, just finished its worst year ever.

Its same-store sales declined last year for the first time since going public two decades ago. The downturn reflects what analysts say is a broader slowdown in fast casual chains — considered a step above fast food but below full-service restaurants.

In a K-shaped economy where the few with money are still spending while everyone else is anxious about rising prices and keeping their jobs, Chipotle is stuck in a sour spot. It isn’t a destination for the rich. Instead, it is a skippable splurge for those looking to save.

“Our guests [are] placing heightened focus on value and quality and pulling back on overall restaurant spending,” Chipotle Chief Executive Scott Boatwright said last week after announcing earnings.

In an uncertain economy muddied by tariffs and an immigration crackdown, consumers are cutting back on discretionary spending and increasingly seeking the best value on essentials such as lunch and dinner.

Advertisement

Chipotle has boomed in popularity since opening in Denver in 1993. It moved its headquarters to California in 2018.

The burrito staple opened 334 new locations last year, bringing its total to roughly 4,000. The company’s net income was $1.5 billion in 2025, virtually flat compared to the year prior. Its comparable sales lost steam with a roughly 2% decline in 2025 following a 7.4% increase in 2024.

In an earnings call earlier this month, executives estimated that same-store sales would be about flat in 2026, with 350 to 370 new restaurants slated to open.

“As we move into 2026, the consumer landscape is shifting,” Boatwright said.

He tried to suggest that Chipotle customers are from the upward-sloping part of the K in the K-shaped economy, so it will not be planning big price cuts to attract new customers. Boatwright said on the earnings call that 60% of Chipotle’s core customers make more than $100,000 per year.

Advertisement

“We’ve learned the guest skews younger, a little more higher income, and we’re gonna lean into that,” Boatwright said.

The company’s suggestion that it doesn’t plan to do much more for cost-conscious consumers sparked an online debate that the burrito giant is no longer for regular people.

McDonald’s demonstrated the value of offering more value these days. It announced this week that its sales surged after the launch of its $5 meal deal last year, part of broader value wars among fast-food establishments.

Chipotle has tried to offer value by not raising its prices as much as inflation would require, reviving a rewards program, testing a “happier hour” with lower prices and offering smaller portions at lower prices.

Chipotle came under fire in 2024 for dishing out inconsistent portion sizes, but has since recommitted to giving every customer a “generous” helping.

Advertisement

Late last year, Chipotle launched a high-protein menu that includes inexpensive options like a cup of chicken or steak for around $4. Protein has been trending as the rise of GLP-1s have many Americans eating less and focused on getting the most out of their meals.

“This is going to be a marquee year for Chipotle to get back on track,” said Jim Salera, a restaurant analyst at Stephens. “Chipotle has traditionally been much more resilient through ebbs and flows of the consumer, but nobody’s immune.”

The company has weathered other challenges in the past. Its business took a hit when it served tainted food that sickened more than 1,100 people in the U.S. from 2015 to 2018. The company paid a $25 million fine to resolve criminal charges connected with the outbreaks.

Some full-service restaurants are also lowering prices to levels that compete with Chipotle, analysts said. A Chipotle burrito or bowl plus a drink costs around $15, while the value-focused full-service restaurant Chili’s offers a multi-course meal for under $11.

“The pricing advantage that fast casual has relative to other segments has eroded significantly” said Aneurin Canham-Clyne, who covers restaurants for the trade publication Restaurant Dive.

Advertisement

Middle- and upper-income consumers aged 25 to 30 make up a significant share of Chipotle’s business, but many are looking for cheaper ways to get their meals. Fast casual chains have to rely on consumers with a range of incomes, not just the top 20% of households, Canham-Clyne said.

“White collar workers making in the low six figures in major cities who are feeling the heat from services inflation or feeling insecure in their jobs as a result of AI, they’re going to be saving a little bit more money,” he said.

Chipotle shares have fallen more than 37% over the past year, and they are not the only fast casual company to struggle in the stock market. Sweetgreen, headquartered in Los Angeles and catering to a health-conscious Southern California consumer, has seen its shares plummet 80% over the past year. The Mediterranean bowl spot Cava saw shares fall more than 50% over the same time period.

Chipotle shares closed Thursday at $35.84, down 4% for the day.

Canham-Clyne said Chipotle is not yet in dire straits. The brand has proven itself consistent and appealing to those looking for high-quality meals at a lower price than most sit-down restaurants.

Advertisement

“They sell a lot of burritos, they have a lot of stores,” Canham-Clyne said. “They can survive a bit of a downturn and continue to grow.”

Continue Reading

Business

Video: How ICE Is Pushing Tech Companies to Identify Protesters

Published

on

Video: How ICE Is Pushing Tech Companies to Identify Protesters

new video loaded: How ICE Is Pushing Tech Companies to Identify Protesters

The DHS is flooding social media companies with administrative subpoenas to identify accounts that are protesting ICE. Social media companies have pushed back but are largely complying. Our tech reporter, Sheera Frenkel, explains.

By Sheera Frenkel, Christina Thornell, Valentina Caval, Thomas Vollkommer, Jon Hazell and June Kim

February 14, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending