The terrorist who carried out the attacks on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand in 2019 exploited the power of social media to broadcast his hatred across the world – feeding an already mounting hate pandemic. He livestreamed his murderous campaign that killed 51 people and wounded 49 more. The video was taken down from Facebook, but not before it had been shared millions of times across Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and 8chan. Mass killings can inspire copycats, raising concerns that terrorist content that goes viral may inspire other acts of mass violence. The subsequent copycat terrorist acts that followed confirmed this fear – attacks in Poway, California, El Paso, Texas and Halle, Germany were all inspired by the Christchurch attack.

Extremism and COVID-19

The political, economic and societal impacts of COVID-19 are causing multiple extremist groups to flourish, particularly in the West, where the grievances of right-wing extremist (RWE) groups are rooted in racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, anti-LGBTQ sentiment, Islamophobia and perceptions of government overreach.

Historically, RWE groups have cast immigrants as vectors of disease who poison both the physical and moral health of the countries they migrate to, and the pandemic has provided the ideal opportunity for repackaging this thinking. RWE groups are now spreading social media posts claiming that Muslims and other ethnic and religious minorities are spreading COVID-19.

The threat we face

Extremism, xenophobia and hate strike at the heart of our values. Our ability to respond to these societal challenges and develop effective countermeasures is likely to define whether we can successfully counter violent extremism and terrorism in the coming decade.

One of the major problems that we face is how to control the ability of tech-powered global connectivity to give a platform to and amplify extremists’ and terrorists’ messages of hate, as the Christchurch attack visibly demonstrated.

Tech as the metastasizer

In 1997, MIT researchers Van Alstyne and Brynjolfsson  warned of a potential dark side of global interconnectivity, maintaining that “Individuals empowered to screen out material that does not conform to their existing preferences may form virtual cliques, reinforce their biases, and insulate themselves from opposing points of view. Internet users can seek out interactions with like-minded individuals who have similar values, and thus become less likely to trust important decisions by people whose values differ from their own”. They referred to this phenomenon as “cyberbalkanisation” and warned that the loss of shared experiences and values may be harmful to the structure of democratic societies.

The US, for example, has always been confronted with anti-government groups, but today’s atomised movement is different because it is also being fueled by widespread populist discontent that is being legitimised by political leaders and has entered the mainstream of national politics and discourse. But even worse, these messages are being metastasized by the connectivity afforded by the internet and social media.

As a result, today’s extremist narratives can become even more powerful than an actual act of violence. One could argue that extremist groups are producing cyber ideology “time bombs” that will eventually detonate to unleash civil unrest or even societal collapse.

Preventing and countering violent extremism

Governments, the private sector and civil society must take tough decisions to censor extremist content while ensuring the right to free expression. Striking the right balance between these two requirements is difficult enough in ordinary circumstances. But modern extremism and terrorism are changing, making the new extremist/terrorist movements difficult to address. There is no central leader to decapitate, no organisation to disrupt and no infrastructure to monitor. And as a result of scrutiny and censorship, online extremists have migrated to the so-called dark web, increasing the difficulties faced by agencies tasked with monitoring their activities. We must therefore find innovative new countermeasures to defend ourselves against this amorphous new threat.

Many governments now realise that the digital domain should be given the same priority in counterterrorism strategies as security threats in the real world, but they have not yet developed suitable responses.

Content moderation has become an important tool in combatting terrorism. In 2017 an industry-led and -funded initiative that includes Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, Dropbox, Amazon, LinkedIn, Mega.nz, Instagram and WhatsApp founded the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) to “Prevent terrorists and violent extremists from exploiting digital platforms”.

The GIFCT governs the internet by centralising content moderation based on decision-making between the tech sector and governments. It  became more operative after the Christchurch attack, playing a prominent role in the Christchurch Call to Action to eliminate extremist content. Its definition of terrorism is not fixed and is drawn from UN guidance. Each member company defines and captures what qualifies as “terrorism-related content” under its own terms of service. The GIFCT’s partner, Tech Against Terrorism, maintains that defining terrorism is challenging, and calls on tech, government and civil society to develop vetted lists of terrorist groups that should be banned and blocked.

Other steps are being taken. For example, the European Commission launched a code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online through IT platforms’ “voluntarily” removing illegal content. The June 2020 results assessment reported that IT companies assess 90 per cent of flagged content within 24 hours and remove 71 per cent of the content deemed to be illegal hate speech. However, this falls dramatically short of what needs to be done to curb the global hate pandemic, and this process still has a long way to go.

It is hoped that other initiatives will be able to do more to counter the effects of extremism and hatred. Recently, for example, the US Department of Homeland Security offered grants to support initiatives to counter violent extremism. The  German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth focuses on community engagement. The Danish PET Centre for the Prevention of Extremism supports the efforts of teachers, social workers and police to counter extremism. In Australia, ministries of multicultural affairs focus on Community Partnership Action for social cohesion, while the EU’s Radicalization Awareness Network is following a similar path.

These and other initiatives offer multiple opportunities for enhanced collective resilience – with the emphasis here on collective. Only by working together can we stop the hate pandemic from spreading!

ABOUT THIS BLOG SERIES:

As the world attempts to navigate yet another major disruption, we continue to look to one another to identify sustainable solutions and rebuild better. It is time for our world to take conscious steps towards unity and to work together so as to move beyond our preconceptions and challenge our stagnation. This #OnlyTogether blog series provides you with expert insights and the beginnings of a roadmap to a more peaceful and secure future. This blog series was launched to celebrate our 25th Anniversary, discover our 3-day event programme here.

Disclaimer: The views, information and opinions expressed in the written publications are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those shared by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy or its employees. The GCSP is not responsible for and may not always verify the accuracy of the information contained in the written publications submitted by a writer.