Not Just The Web: Radicalisation and Digital Media
The Internet is often declared the sole cause of radicalisation and extremism. But there are many factors contributing to both
Is the Internet a radicalizing force? Does it lead to more politically motivated violence? These are questions that flare up again and again after terrorist attacks, especially when it is discovered that the perpetrator(s) have been very active online. Recent examples include the attacks in Hanau, Halle and Christchurch where the respective right-wing attackers are known to have consumed or distributed extremist content on the web.
In the most recent case of the racially motivated attack in the German city of Hanau on 19 February 2020, the attacker published a vitriolic pamphlet on the Internet and it seems likely that his extreme right-wing and paranoid world view was, at least partly, shaped by the things he consumed online. As more details came to light, various commentators were quick to demand tougher action and expressively linked the terrorist’s radicalisation to web.
Yet, contrary to such statements — often propagated by think tanks, politicians and journalists — the role of digital media* when it comes to radicalisation is complicated. But what do we know? And what can we learn from it? (*I use this term to refer to the web, social media, messaging apps and the like.)
What is radicalisation?
First of all, we need to establish what we actually mean when we talk about “radicalisation”.
Radicalisation is first and foremost a social process. It is commonly understood to be the causes and circumstances under which a person or group adopts an extreme ideology and rejects a status quo. In the scientific literature, there is widespread agreement that radicalisation is a dynamic, multilevel and multilayered phenomenon that occurs through the interaction of environmental and individual factors. It is crucial that radicalisation can go hand in hand with an increased willingness to tolerate violence or even to use it against others, but this is by no means always the case.
But do digital media lead to greater radicalisation? In order to address this, it is necessary to first break down this question into its constituent parts: For one, it already contains the assumption that radicalisation would not happen without digital media. This, in turn, leads to the hypothesis that these media — following a techno-determinist logic — must have certain characteristics that lead to or at least contribute to greater radicalisation.
Digitally-mediated communication has enabled new forms of communality across time and distance and easier access to previously largely inaccessible knowledge.
And indeed, there are factors through which digital media can encourage radicalisation tendencies. On the one hand, they bind us more strongly to each other and to information of all kinds. But what has a positive effect in other contexts can also bring those with a predisposition for certain ideologies closer together and into contact with certain content. In other words, fans of pop music, yoga or progressive politics will find a home online, as will Islamophobes, anti-Semites, right-wing extremists or Islamists. Despite the increasing moderation of content, especially on the major online platforms and more far-reaching surveillance by the authorities, niches remain (and likely will always remain) in which dehumanising and hateful content flourishes and where “interested individuals” can exchange their views and network.
Not that all this would not have been possible in predigital times. But digital media have lowered the entry barrier. To speak with sociologist John B. Thompson, digitally-mediated communication has enabled new forms of communality across time and distance and easier access to previously largely inaccessible knowledge. Nowadays, it’s easier and more convenient than ever before to get in touch with likeminded people and to find content that supports one’s worldview. Whether this was also the case for the Hanau attacker is not yet known and will now be part of the investigations of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office.
The Role of Digital Media
But what effect does “radical” and inflammatory content on the net have on those who consume it? And does this really lead to more radicalisation or worse, a rise in violence? It’s a complex question and impossible to properly address in just a couple of paragraphs. But we can use two examples to get closer to an answer. One is a much-discussed 2018 working paper by two economists from the University of Warwick which postulated that a causal link between hate speech on digital media (in this case Facebook) and a rise in violence could be proven for Germany.
The researchers argued that hate posts (which count as extreme, radicalising content) against refugees on Facebook led to more crimes against them. However, the study has not yet been peer-reviewed and has been criticised by other researchers for its methodology and the conclusions drawn from it. The most frequent point of criticism is that the direction of the effect is not clear, as the study cannot convincingly prove that hate posts lead to more violence and do not simply occur more often after violent acts.
A second example is YouTube. There is cursory scientific evidence that YouTube’s recommendation algorithm — responsible for around 70 percent of the time users spend on the platform — can lead users ever deeper into “ideological snake pits” by suggesting more extreme content. But researchers like the Stanford scholar Rebecca Lewis also argue that the sole focus on the recommendation mechanism is short-sighted and ignores the fact that (right-wing) extremist material on YouTube is by no means just confined to the shadows. Instead, her work has demonstrated how such content is often produced and distributed by well-known influencers and their fans.
Whether all this really leads to greater radicalisation and ultimately makes people more prone to violence and to commit crimes, the current studies cannot yet say conclusively. Generally speaking, there are some theoretical reasons to assume and some cursory evidence to suggest that digital media can contribute to or encourage radicalisation. After all, nobody is born an extremist. Digital media can make it easier for individuals with radicalisation tendencies to network and consume extremist content. They can also aid the wider distribution of such content and thus bring more people into contact with it.
The best evidence we have to date suggests that digital media play some role in the radicalisation of individuals but for all we know they are far from being decisive, nor do they constitute the sole cause of extremism.
Despite all this, however, various strands of research have also demonstrated time and time again that radicalisation without physical social contact with likeminded individuals is extremely rare and unlikely, although this does not mean that it cannot happen without such contact.
And the mere consumption of radical or extremist content does not turn people into terrorists over night, especially not on a broad scale. One could also argue with the Australian political scientists Daniel Baldino and Kosta Lucas that despite the marketing efforts of some extremists and the abundance of extremist material online, the vast majority of people have proven to be relatively resistant to these influences.
In the end, radicalisation is a social process that has many causes. As a process, it results from a combination of political, psychological, cultural, economic and social factors and of communication, both online and offline. Technology can both foster (through simplified access to content and networking opportunities) and hinder (think surveillance by authorities) radicalisation processes. The best evidence we have to date suggests that digital media play some role in the radicalisation of individuals but for all we know they are far from being decisive, nor do they constitute the sole cause of extremism.
No easy answers…
Now where does all this leave us? First, it should go without saying by now that anyone who claims that technology alone is to blame for the radicalisation of individuals and extremism (of all kinds and flavours) closes their eyes to a more complex and nuanced reality. Whenever experts start talking about “radicalisation machines“ and politicians rush to put the blame on “the Internet” or “social media”, one should pause and reflect where such statements come from.
Most often they stem from a “We need to do something, quick!” mindset. Thus, explaining social phenomena with technical factors is still a popular and convenient way of making sense of the world in 2020 — even though we should know better. It’s a message that’s easy to grasp and that sells. And it’s a message that allows to neglect other, more arduous and time-consuming countermeasures.
Anyone who claims that technology alone is to blame for extremism closes their eyes to a more complex and nuanced reality.
But what can be, what must be done? Much to the frustration of some pundits and policy-makers, there are no easy answers when it comes to counteracting radicalisation. To put it differently: Tweaking some algorithms, blanket censoring content or ever greater surveillance will no stop some individuals from turning into extremists — apart from the ethical quagmires regarding individual liberties into which one quickly navigates with such approaches. This is not to say that these measures — in moderation — cannot work. But they will do little to address the underlying causes.
What would be required, as the American sociologist and extremism expert Cynthia Miller-Idriss argues, is a holistic approach: counter-narratives to those of the extremists must be found. And societies’ internal defences must be strengthened — for example, through counter-measures in schools and other educational institutions. Finally, Miller-Idriss also argues that we need to invest more resources into understanding the effects of digital media and online consumption on today’s youth, particularly when it comes to empathy, communication skills, and their resilience to hate and conspiracy narratives.
We need to find counter-narratives to those of the extremists. And we need to strengthen our societies’ internal defences.
The media, too, cannot hide from scrutiny. They often play a crucial role in (accidentally) promoting extremist content. As I have argued elsewhere, drawing on the work of scholars like danah boyd, Joan Donovan and Whitney Phillips, there is much that suggests that the media should contain extremist ideas, conspiracy theories and lies. Not by desperately trying to refute them — this rarely works — but by not paying more attention to them than they deserve. For extremist groups or individuals are often only as successful as the media allows them to be.
Technology companies need to up their game, too, although there are legitimate concerns if we really want to and should rely on the willingness of these companies to act. As the former member of the European parliament, Marietje Schaake, recently argued in the Financial Times, overarching and uniform rules should be established to ensure a level playing field. Only politics can create these. Or as Schaake puts it: “Corporate initiatives are no substitute for democratic lawmaking.”
Finally, our policies can only be as good as the research they are based on. Good empirical studies on the role of digital media in radicalisation processes are still in short supply, which has had a negative impact on the strength of the conclusions on this topic. Recent attacks such as the one in Hanau are not only a warning to finally take right-wing extremism seriously. They should also serve as a reminder to politicians and technology companies to support scientists in better understanding these phenomena.
This article is based on a shorter piece which originally appeared in German in the Swiss newspaper NZZ.
Felix Simon is a journalist, researcher, and Leverhulme Doctoral Scholar at the University of Oxford’s Internet Institute (OII), where he also works as a research assistant at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. He regularly writes about politics, tech and the media for various international outlets and tweets under @_Felix Simon_.
