Readers respond to Jonathan Freedland’s article about the tycoon’s role in allowing disinformation to spread and fuelling the far-right riots

I couldn’t agree more with Jonathan Freedland, except in one regard (You know who else should be on trial for the UK’s far-right riots? Elon Musk, 9 August). He may be right that it is difficult for politicians, journalists, influencers or even governments to leave X, but they haven’t even considered how to start an effective consumer boycott against Elon Musk as long as he is the owner of the platform, abusing and ruling it in authoritarian style.

Musk has shown support for Donald Trump and promoted Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland party on X, and he has talked up far-right political violence in Britain without encountering any serious resistance. So there should be a sufficient basis for organised opposition as long as he is the owner of X and abuses the platform for his political aims. You may be delighted to hear that your article has been the last straw on the back of my own patience with the man. I’ve just deactivated my X account after a 13-year membership.
Eckart Hoffmann
Schenefeld, Germany

 Jonathan Freedland rightly asks why Elon Musk is not more widely censured for his role in stirring up social unrest in western democracies.

Musk is given particular kudos by his fellowship of the Royal Society, the world’s oldest and most respected scientific community, which has so far failed to retract this award. While previous commercial partners in Musk’s business ventures are leaving in droves, the society appears not to appreciate the reputational damage increasingly associated with unaccountable demagogues. I would urge any fellows who recognise the risk to make their views known.
David Morris
Castanet, France

 The Online Safety Act is already being criticised as inadequate (Online Safety Act not fit for purpose after far-right riots, says Sadiq Khan, 8 August). But there is already a legal duty on employers to reduce the risks to the public from their business activities “so far as is reasonably practicable”.

Significant failure to control such risks is a crime under the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act, and penalties in the worst cases in other industries have included very large fines for the company and prison sentences for company directors.

Elon Musk could easily ban Tommy Robinson from X, for example. Other agitators’ accounts could be identified and removed from social media. Is there a reason why the act is not used to force the directors of social media companies to act responsibly?
Prof Martyn Thomas
Emeritus professor, Gresham College

 I am a councillor in Canterbury, and false rumours circulating on Tuesday last week meant that traders didn’t open for the Wednesday market, so they lost money. False rumours on the Wednesday said that there was a riot at the bus station – there wasn’t, but people decided not to travel in. False rumours about smashed windows and closed shops meant that the normally very busy streets were almost devoid of people. Shops missed out on trade. Canterbury cathedral closed its gates to tourists.

It’s not just X but also Elon Musk who amplified people’s fears. I’m pleased that people who spread false rumours have been charged. I will pay tribute to the police who made sure that the 40 or so protesters couldn’t access Canterbury mosque, and the security guards and council enforcement officers who patrolled the city’s streets to reassure people.
Connie Nolan
Canterbury