Online Library

VOX-Pol Blog post.

VOX-Pol Blog Post.

Foreword-The standard media image of violent extremism may seem to be far from the ordinary work of the Swedish Media Council. While extremism is often described in dramatic terms of terrorism, attacks and riots, the Council’s work concerns more everyday things, such as age limits for cinema films and media awareness teaching in pre-school. But no person is born to be a perpetrator of violence for political or religious purposes. Being recruited to and radicalised within the framework of pro-violence
and anti-democratic extremist groups is a question of adopting, more or less uncritically, an image of the world where hate is the driving force and violence the legitimate means. In today’s information society, the Internet has become, to an ever increasing extent, the tool for spreading anti-democratic messages for the purpose of recruiting new members. This fact places great demands on people young and old to retain a critical view of information and sometime sharply angled messages that we come across in both traditional and digital media. In October 2011, the Government mandated the Swedish Media Council to describe the presence of anti-democratic messages on the Internet and in social media. The focus is on messages aimed at young persons, and that encourage violence for political or ideological reasons. The aim is to create broader knowledge about extremist Internet milieu, their content, and how recruitment strategies
are formulated and communicated. The overall purpose is to strengthen young persons in preparation for encounters with such messages.

On the one hand, the companies in question feel a business incentive to create a digital
environment where their users feel safe, and are increasingly compelled by governments to cooperate in blocking, filtering, countering or removing content or accounts on the grounds of public safety or national security concerns. In addition, users expect the companies to be transparent, accountable, respect privacy and freedom of opinion and expression and guarantee remedy, while also ensuring an open, free and secure internet. This reality has led to greater voluntary engagement of the private sector in efforts to respond to terrorist use of the internet and ICT. This engagement includes industry-driven initiatives and participation in multi-stakeholder and public-private fora focusing on normative, technical and organizational issues, as well as engagement with academia.

Institutional ethics review procedures aim – in principle – to minimise harm and evaluate risks, providing an important space to consider the safety of participants and researchers. However, literature has questioned the effectiveness of the process, particularly for reviewing ‘risky’ topics in a risk-averse environment. This article reports the findings of interviews with 21 researchers of the far right and manosphere to understand how early career researchers perceive and engage with the process as a component of risk management. It argues that scholars experience IRBs struggling to meet their normative goal of ‘no undue harm’ due to a focus on legality and liability whilst lacking topical and methodological expertise. The lack of expertise produced misperceptions of risk, establishing institutional ethics as an obstacle rather than evaluative aid, creating holes in the ‘safety net’ that institutional ethics can provide. These findings contribute to concerns raised about the effective management of risk by early career researchers and the ethical review of ‘sensitive’ topics.