It’s time for somebody to step in and regulate social media

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

At this point decent people should no more be found on Twitter/X than they would 4chan or the Stormfront forums (PA Wire)

I thoroughly enjoyed Alan Rusbridger’s recent article, in which he proposed a mass exodus (or “X-odus”) from Elon Musk’s Twitter/X.

I have used the platform since 2011, and the difference in its culture between then and now cannot be overstated. How is it that we all regularly use a system which is openly sympathetic to racists, white supremacists, homophobes, extremists, and people calling for violence on our streets?

I just don’t understand how it’s legal for a largely unregulated piece of communication infrastructure to operate at this level without any sort of oversight body stepping in and doing something about it. Moreover, I can’t believe how many organisations are happy to peddle their wares next to those same acts of intimidation and calls for violence.

I don’t believe in ceding ground to the far right but at this point, decent people should no more be found on Twitter/X than they would 4chan or the Stormfront forums. It’s time for Elon Musk to realise his warped notion of “free speech” cuts both ways, by exercising our freedom to go somewhere else.

Stephen Bloom

Canterbury

Before flying, ask yourself: do I need to make this journey?

Simon Calder begins his article on Wizz Air’s £427 “all you can fly” promotion with a question: “How does the prospect of a year of unlimited flights within Europe … for a flat fare of £9 per hop sound?” The answer is: a disaster for our climate.

Aviation is in the top three hardest-to-decarbonise industries in the world. Despite all the industry’s hype about so-called “sustainable” aviation fuels, all independent expert analyses (eg the Royal Society and Imperial College) conclude there is no realistic prospect of scaling up clean fuels within a climate-relevant timescale. That is, we must cut all emissions in half by 2030 to get on course for net zero by 2050.

It is to Simon’s credit that he ended the article by asking the question that every traveller should seriously consider: is this journey really necessary? When thinking about this, please remember that more flying means more climate damage, which harms our chances of leaving a liveable planet for future generations.

Nick Hodgkinson

Chair of the Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport

Animal farming is destroying our environment

When it comes to the things that are destroying our environment, please just don’t concentrate on oil. Doing so distracts from the worst environmentally destructive and polluting industry: animal farming.

It is an industry which is not only seriously damaging the environment (and consequentially our wildlife), but also prevents vast quantities of carbon from being sequestered into the soil.

Cattle farming in particular is a culprit, not just because it is the most inefficient use of land imaginable – it is also a more serious polluter of UK land and watercourses than the human population.

One person can take a return flight from London to New York for the same carbon footprint as 1kg of beef.

What is more, despite the environmental consequences, both beef and dairy are subsidised – we have a population heavily reliant on imported food, so why are we subsidising such inefficiency rather than making better use of our land?

Graham C

Address supplied

What is happening with our nuclear deterrent?

The previous government, and no doubt our current leaders, insist we must spend billions on renewing our nuclear-armed submarine fleet. This deterrent, we are told, is essential to keeping us safe.

How soundly I will sleep tonight having read in The Independent that all six of our current fleet are in for servicing, leaving us totally unprotected from a possible attack that we were told we must be prepared for.

G Forward

Stirling

We could stand to learn a thing or two from Tim Walz

The US vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz appears to have few investments with no stocks or a house. This has puzzled many, especially economists. However, the answer to this may be deceptively simple: he was a teacher.

Teachers are often poorly paid, and thus find it hard to put money aside for investments. As VP, he might be able to find a way for teachers to be paid what they are worth – after all, no one else seems to have been able to.

A thought from a retired teacher!

Dennis Fitzgerald

Address supplied