Online Library

Discourse of terrorism and social media are often discussed the last few years, discussions related to the issue of terrorism is often associated with social media is considered to be one of the tools used to spread the ideology of terrorist networks even recruiting members. Terrorist networks utilizing social media to conduct ideological campaign covertly or overtly and massive. The definition of terrorism employed here is the selective use of fear, subjugation, and Intimidation to disrupt the normal operations of a society. All social system seek ethical and legal norms that satisfy the conditions for continued human survival without giving offence to the major ideological premises on which these respective societies have come to rest. Consequently, while different social systems react differently to terror in accordance with their vision of self interest, no surviving society can be indifferent to the problems raised by terrorism. Terrorist activities have been aiming for and take advantage of ideology and religion for the world community in favor of the claim that their struggle. Genealogy religious radicalism emerged for several reasons. As the pressure of the political regime in power and the failures of the secular ideology of the regime, so the presence of radicalism considered as an alternative ideological only in the fight against oppression and adversity caused by the secular regime so that a group of radicalism assumed that it had no other option but to commit acts of terrorism to counter secular regime. The polarization of political behavior and the fragmentation of political belief are well illustrated in the current rhetoric concerning. Attitudes toward the uses of terror and the functions of terrorist range from a gratuitous belief in terror as the only possible means to bring about social changes to a view of terror and terrorist. The range of views extends from terrorists as the only authentic heroes in notably unheroic age to their demotion as petty criminals who coat their venal act with an ideological gloss.

The increasing use of online social networks (OSNs) by extremists for the spread of radicalization have been a great concern for law enforcement agencies across the world. Today, they are being increasingly used by radical groups for spreading ideologies, recruitment, influencing and planning their activities. However, many of such groups remain hidden within the social fabric and can only be discovered by analyzing the related content posted by them. This article addresses the missing line of research by analyzing hidden online Radical networks along three dimensions—element level, group-level, and network level and addresses the gap which the present metrics for social network analysis fail to address as we graduate toward the dynamic network analysis. We propose new metrics to analyze the evolving topic-centric network and present our findings about the understanding of properties of such complex networks in the information network of Twitter with the existing as well the new proposed metrics.

The counterterrorism and CVE community has long questioned the effectiveness of counterspeech in countering extremism online. While most evaluation of counterspeech rely on limited reach and engagement metrics, this paper explores two models to better measure behavioral change and sentiment analysis. Conducted via partnerships between Facebook and counter-extremism NGOs, the first model uses A/B testing to analyze the effects of counterspeech exposure on low-prevalence-high-risk audiences engaging with Islamist extremist terrorist content. The second model builds upon online safety intervention approaches and the Redirect Method through a search based “get-help” module, redirecting white-supremacy and Neo-Nazi related search-terms to disengagement NGOs.

The counterterrorism and CVE community has long questioned the effectiveness of counterspeech in countering extremism online. While most evaluation of counterspeech rely on limited reach and engagement metrics, this paper explores two models to better measure behavioral change and sentiment analysis. Conducted via partnerships between Facebook and counter-extremism NGOs, the first model uses A/B testing to analyze the effects of counterspeech exposure on low-prevalence-high-risk audiences engaging with Islamist extremist terrorist content. The second model builds upon online safety intervention approaches and the Redirect Method
through a search based “get-help” module, redirecting whitesupremacy and Neo-Nazi related search-terms to disengagement NGOs.

Support for an extremist entity such as Islamic State (ISIS) somehow manages to survive globally online despite considerable external pressure and may ultimately inspire acts by individuals having no history of extremism, membership in a terrorist faction, or direct links to leadership. Examining longitudinal records of online activity, we uncovered an ecology evolving on a daily time scale that drives online support, and we provide a mathematical theory that describes it. The ecology features self-organized aggregates (ad hoc groups formed via linkage to a Facebook page or analog) that proliferate preceding the onset of recent real-world campaigns and adopt novel adaptive mechanisms to enhance their survival. One of the predictions is that development of large, potentially potent pro-ISIS aggregates can be thwarted by targeting smaller ones.

A review of relevant empirical literature shows that many features of social media platforms actively promote or encourage hate speech. Key factors include algorithmic recommendations, which frequently promote hateful ideologies; social affordances which let users encourage or disseminate hate speech by others; anonymous, impersonal environments; and the absence of media ‘gatekeepers’. In mandating faster content deletion, NetzDG only addresses the last of these, ignoring other relevant factors. Moreover, reliance on individual user complaints to trigger platforms’ obligations means hate speech will often escape deletion. Interviews with relevant civil society organisations confirm these flaws of the NetzDG model. From their perspectives, NetzDG has had little impact on the prevalence or visibility of online hate speech, and its reporting mechanisms fail to help affected communities.