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

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

Published

on

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.

In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”

“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.

The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.

Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.

Advertisement

The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.

“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.

Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”

Advertisement

The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.

On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.

The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.

Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.

“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”

Advertisement

Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.

Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.

“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.

Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.

Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.

Advertisement

“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”

Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.

The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”

Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.

The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending