By Ryan Scrivens, Thomas W. Wojciechowski, Tiana Gaudette, and Richard Frank
There is an ongoing need for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to identify and examine the online posting behaviors of violent extremists prior to their engagement in violence offline, but little is empirically known about their online presence generally or differences in their posting behaviors compared to their non-violent counterparts particularly. Even less is empirically known about their persisting and desisting posting patterns. This is a notable oversight, as distinguishing between persisters and desisters would facilitate better understanding of users’ transitions away from specific online spaces, either to other platforms or to offline behavior – especially if there are differences between violent and non-violent users in this regard. Further, it is unclear what these users are posting as they desist in posting behavior – is their posted content becoming more extreme or moderate? Are they mobilizing others to extremism or renouncing their extremist views? Relatedly, practitioners and policymakers continue to struggle with the size and scope of the potential online violent extremist threat. In attempting to further assess the distinction in posting behavior between violent and non-violent users, this research aims to assist practitioners and policy makers in their critical efforts to identify credible online threats.
This Insight summarizes an exploratory study which is derived from a larger research project on the online behavioral posting patterns of violent and non-violent right-wing extremists (RWEs). This study expands prior research by examining online changes in the posting patterns of violent and non-violent right-wing extremists during the beginning, middle, and end of their observed posting activity. Here we identified persister and desister posters to create four sample groups: non-violent persisters, non-violent desisters, violent persisters, and violent desisters. We then calculated the average number of posts for each sample group as well as quantified the existence of extremist ideologies and violent extremist mobilization efforts across each observed posting period. Overall, we identified several noteworthy posting patterns that may assist law enforcement and intelligence agencies in identifying credible threats online.
First, persister posters – regardless of their violence status – comprised the largest proportion of users in the sample (see Table 1). In other words, a noticeably larger proportion of persister posters (n = 42) were present in the data compared to their desister counterpart (n = 22). This finding comes as a surprise, given that recent empirical work overwhelmingly suggests that most users who post in RWE online spaces desist in their posting behavior over time. Yet our findings align with other empirical work which found that users tend to persist in their extremist online behavior over time – a finding supported by research conceptualizing such online spaces as “hornet’s nests” or “lone wolf incubators” for polarizing views. Perhaps the persisters in our study were embedded in RWE groups offline and in turn they had a greater stake in participating in online discussions for recruitment and radicalization purposes, for example – a posting pattern that law enforcement and intelligence agencies should be aware of as they sift through myriad online discussions to identify potential credible threats. It may also be the case that our definition of ‘desisters’ and, by extension, our sampling procedure was too narrow, as persisters may have eventually desisted in posting behavior but their data were not tracked for long enough to account for such a change. Nevertheless, this finding may be a symptom of the sample and requires further exploration.
Second, persisters were generally the most active user type across their observed posting periods. To illustrate, non-violent persisters, who made up the largest proportion of users in the sample (n = 25), were among the most active users and they too were among the highest in ideological postings as well as mobilization postings across time periods (see Table 2). These prolific posters were outspoken about their extremist beliefs and made numerous efforts to mobilize others to extremism, and perhaps they were unafraid to do so because they refrained from engaging in violence offline – a finding that comes as little surprise given that research suggests that the online behaviors of non-violent RWEs tend to reflect one of an ideologue wherein they post a much larger proportion of ideological and mobilization messages than their violent counterpart. Importantly, these non-violent persisters may perceive their role in and engage with the RWE movement as ideologues, thus providing “conceptual tools” that can be taken up by others involved in RWE violence, which has been reported in empirical research. Pinpointing the individuals who adopt these active roles in the RWE movement and examining the ideological content they attempt to promote to the masses may be helpful for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to gauge the extremist ideologies driving individuals to extremist violence.
Violent persisters, who were among the larger proportion of users in the sample (n = 17), also tended to post with the most frequency during each of their observed posting periods and, by extension, were the most active compared to all other sample groups, but they were among the least active in posting ideological or mobilization messages during their posting time. Interestingly, although these users engaged in violence in the offline world, they were noticeably active online throughout their entire posting time. But because of their level of and propensity for violence, they may have been apprehensive about posting too many ideological messages or mobilization messages that could draw unwanted attention to them. To some extent, this set of findings comes as a surprise. On the one hand, it comes as little surprise that violent persisters were among the least active in posting ideological or mobilizing content, as previous work on the online behaviors of RWEs suggest those who are actively involved in violent RWE activities offline tend to be concerned that law enforcement officials and anti-racist groups are monitoring their online activities and may modify their posting activities to avoid detection. Previous research on extremist posting patterns also suggests that violent RWEs tend to post fewer ideological and mobilization posts than their non-violent counterpart.
On the other hand, it is surprising that violent persisters were the most active posters in general because empirical research has found that violent RWEs tend to be much less active online than non-violent RWEs. At any rate, these results align with previous research suggesting that the presumed positive association between posting frequency and risk of extremist violence may not be so straightforward. In other words, prolific posts may also be violent extremists and, as such, analysts searching for signs of violent extremists online who are largely concerned about investigating users who post few messages may be overlooking credible threats. Nonetheless, this is a question of policy relevance that should be investigated in future research.
Third, desisters were generally the least active user type across their observed posting periods. To illustrate violent desisters – who made up the smallest proportion of users in the sample (n = 7) – tended to post with the least amount of frequency during their observed posting activity. In addition, they generally posted fewer ideological messages than the other groups, but they did post a noticeably larger proportion of mobilization messages than the other groups during each observed posting period before desisting (see Table 3). Violent desisters also posted more messages, ideological messages, and mobilization messages at the end of their posting activity than all other sample groups. Noteworthy is that, while this group were generally low-profile users who posted few messages in general and ideological posts in particular, much of the content they did post encouraged others to mobilize to extremism, and they became more active online in general and in posting mobilization posts in particular than the other user groups at the end of their posting activity before desisting. Perhaps they were making a last-ditch effort to mobilize other to action as they desisted in posting frequency – which is certainly a posting behavior that law enforcement and intelligence agencies should focus on in their efforts to identify violent extremists online.
Violent desisters may have also played key offline roles in the RWE movement, such as engaging in offline violence to show their level of commitment to the cause, and in turn did not see the utility in posting online other than promoting others to mobilize to extremism. Perhaps their roles and involvement in the movement offline provided them with the connections, status, and a sense of identity, among other things, that the more active online users were seeking through online communications, as has been found in previous research. It may also have been the case that law enforcement were monitoring their on- and offline presence because of their offline violence, paired with their efforts to mobilize people online, and in turn did not desist by their own accord but instead were imprisoned with limited Internet access. This is highly speculative and requires further exploration.
Non-violent desisters, who were among the smaller proportion of users in the sample (n = 15), were also among the least active posters in the sample. While they posted the fewest mobilization messages during each of their observed posting periods, they did however post ideological messages with some frequency across each observed period compared to the other sample groups. Indeed, this non-violent user group were low-profile posters who made little attempt to mobilize others online but were quite active in posting ideological messages before desisting. Perhaps they were newer adherents to the movement, immersed in and outspoken about extremist ideologies, but were not yet committed to mobilizing others to extremism. It may also be the case that these users were simply not interested in the activism side of the movement but instead were more concerned with spreading extremist ideologies online – a finding that aligns with previous work on the varying roles of the RWE movement. Either way, it is unclear why these non-violent users desisted in posting behavior. Perhaps they simply lost interest in participating in the online community, as researchers examining such posting trends have found, and as a result they migrated to new RWE platforms. Regardless, these assumptions require further assessment.
This article summarizes a recent study published in Terrorism and Political Violence.
Ryan Scrivens is an Assistant Professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University (MSU). He is also an Associate Director at the International CyberCrime Research Centre (ICCRC) and a Research Fellow at VOX-Pol. Follow him on X/Twitter: @R_Scrivens.
Thomas W. Wojciechowski is an Assistant Professor in the School of Criminal Justice at MSU.
Tiana Gaudette is a PhD student in the School of Criminal Justice at MSU. Follow her on X/Twitter: @TianaGaudette.
Richard Frank is a Professor in the School of Criminology at SFU and Director of the ICCRC.
IMAGE CREDIT: PEXELS
Want to submit a blog post? Click here.