The Policing of the Performative
Two men in North London face charges for TikTok videos. The headlines scream about hate crime enforcement and the swift arm of the law. The public nods along, satisfied that the "bad actors" are being hauled before a magistrate. They think the system is working. They are wrong.
The arrest of individuals for filming antisemitic content isn't a victory for public safety; it is a frantic, low-level patch on a structural failure of how we govern digital spaces. We are treating the symptom of a viral infection while the immune system is actively attacking itself. By focusing on the "charge," we ignore the "consequences" of a legal framework that is increasingly reactive, platform-dependent, and ultimately, a distraction from the harder work of protecting communities in the physical world.
Most reporting on these incidents follows a lazy script: incident occurs, outrage bubbles, police act, status quo restored. It ignores the nuance of how these prosecutions function as theater.
The Algorithm is the Prosecution
When the Metropolitan Police move on a TikTok creator, they aren't just enforcing the Public Order Act. They are responding to an algorithmic surge.
I have watched public institutions burn through thousands of man-hours and millions in taxpayer funds chasing "viral" offenses because the visibility of the crime dictates the priority of the response. If an incident happens in a dark alley with no witnesses, it’s a statistic. If it happens on a 15-second loop with a trending audio track, it’s a national emergency.
This isn't justice; it’s optics-driven enforcement.
The Cost of Digital Chasing
- Resource Drain: Officers trained for high-stakes investigative work are diverted to analyze metadata and scrub through frame-by-frame social media uploads.
- False Security: A conviction for a video provides the illusion of a safer street. It does nothing to dismantle the radicalization pipelines that thrive in the encrypted corners of the web where the police rarely venture.
- The Martyrdom Loop: Every time a digital agitator is charged, their reach doesn't diminish; it hardens. They move from mainstream platforms to "alt-tech" silos where they are canonized as free-speech victims, accelerating the very radicalization the law seeks to prevent.
The Misconception of "Connection"
The competitor articles love the phrase "in connection with." It’s vague. It’s safe. It implies a web of conspiracy that often doesn't exist. In reality, these "connections" are often just two guys with a smartphone and a desperate need for engagement.
By elevating every basement-level bigot to the status of a criminal mastermind, we give them exactly what they want: legitimacy. We have reached a point where the criminal justice system is effectively acting as the PR department for fringe ideologies.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Platform Accountability
While the UK government patting itself on the back for these charges, the platforms themselves—the TikToks and X’s of the world—remain largely untouched by the specific fallout of these cases.
We are prosecuting the users while the distributors profit from the "rage-clicks" that the hateful content generates before it’s taken down. If a pub allows people to stand on tables and scream abuse every single night, the pub loses its license. In the digital realm, we just arrest the guy on the table and let the landlord keep selling the beer.
The High Cost of the Low Bar
We have lowered the bar for what constitutes a "successful" police operation.
- Traditional Success: Breaking up a violent cell before an attack.
- Modern Success: Charging someone for a post that hurt feelings.
Don't mistake this for an argument for "free speech" at all costs. Antisemitism is a poison. It is a specific, historical, and escalating threat. But if you think arresting two men for a video is going to stop the rise of antisemitic attacks on the streets of Stamford Hill or Golders Green, you aren't paying attention.
We are trading actual security for the feeling of being "protected" by a tweet from a police department account.
The Logic of Selective Enforcement
Why these two? Why now?
The "lazy consensus" suggests that the law is blind and acts whenever a threshold is met. Experience tells a different story. Enforcement in the digital age is selective and highly influenced by the political climate of the month.
When the police prioritize social media clips, they create a hierarchy of victims. Those who are savvy enough to record their abuse and make it go viral get a response. Those who suffer in silence, or whose abuse doesn't fit the current 24-hour news cycle, are told to fill out an online form and wait 14 days for a reference number.
Stop Asking if it’s Illegal (Ask if it’s Effective)
People always ask: "Is this a hate crime?"
The better question: "Does charging this person make the community safer tomorrow?"
In many cases, the answer is a resounding no. We are witnessing the "judicialization" of social friction. Instead of community intervention, education, or platform-level censorship, we go straight to the handcuffs. This creates a backlog in a court system that is already on its knees.
Imagine a scenario where we diverted the millions spent on "digital hate units" into actual, high-visibility patrols in high-risk neighborhoods. The physical presence of a constable does more to deter a street-level assault than a remote forensic team tracking an IP address three weeks after the fact.
The Liability of the Law
The danger of this contrarian view is that it feels like doing nothing. It isn't. It is about doing what works.
The current path is a dead end. We are trying to use a 20th-century legal hammer to hit a 21st-century digital ghost. By the time the two men charged in London see the inside of a courtroom, the algorithm will have served similar content to millions of other impressionable users.
We are fighting a forest fire by arresting the people holding matches, while the wind—the platform's engagement engine—is blowing the embers across the entire world.
Stop celebrating the "charge" as if it’s the finish line. It’s a distraction from the reality that our digital policy is a shambles and our physical security is being hollowed out to pay for the theater of "online safety."
You can't arrest your way out of a cultural decay that is being subsidized by the very technology in your pocket.
