Online Library

VOX-Pol Blog post.

The report begins by outlining some of the broad knowledge around the idea of mass persuasion, before focusing specifically on lessons that have been learned in the field of P/CVE. This is followed by a synthesis of existing “How To” guides for the creation of strategic communications from a range of policy and practitioner stakeholders. Then, we discuss specific knowledge of audiovisual content, particularly considerations for short-form video content. The report concludes by outlining how stakeholders, including social media platforms, can monitor, measure, and evaluate the impact of this type of content.

This guide is intended to help creators producing or thinking about making shortform video content seeking to counter extremism. Our goal is not to tell you what to create; your original content is what makes your channel creative and organic. Instead, we hope to provide you with tools and tips to create stronger content that harnesses evidence from decades of academic research. Creating short-form video content (with expected video length to be 15-60 seconds) that counters extremism (both violent and nonviolent) and promotes positive values is a powerful way to engage with your audience. To help you succeed in this mission, we have compiled a guide that not only inspires creativity but also provides practical tips for further success.

VOX-Pol Blog post.

Policymakers have recently expressed concerns over the role of recommendation algorithms and their role in forming “filter bubbles”. This is a particularly prescient concern in the context of extremist content online; these algorithms may promote extremist content at the expense of more moderate voices. In this article, we make two contributions to this debate. Firstly, we provide a novel empirical analysis of three platforms’ recommendation systems when interacting with far-right content. We find that one platform—YouTube—does amplify extreme and fringe content, while two—Reddit and Gab—do not. Secondly, we contextualise these findings into the regulatory debate. There are currently few policy instruments for dealing with algorithmic amplification, and those that do exist largely focus on transparency. We argue that policymakers have yet to fully understand the problems inherent in “de-amplifying” legal, borderline content and argue that a co-regulatory approach may offer a route towards tackling many of these challenges.

Drawing from interviews with 39 online extremism and terrorism researchers, this article provides an empirical analysis of these researchers’ experiences with institutional ethics processes. Discussed are the harms that these researchers face in the course of their work, including trolling, doxing, and mental and emotional trauma arising from exposure to terrorist content, which highlight the need for an emphasis on researcher welfare. We find that researcher welfare is a neglected aspect of ethics review processes however, with most interviewees not required to gain ethics approval for their research resulting in very little attention to researcher welfare issues. Interviewees were frustrated with ethics processes, indicating that committees oftentimes lacked the requisite knowledge to make informed ethical decisions. Highlighted by interviewees too was a concern that greater emphasis on researcher welfare could result in blockages to their ‘risky’ research, creating a ‘Catch 22’: interviewees would like more emphasis on their (and colleagues’) welfare and provision of concomitant supports, but feel that increased oversight would make gaining ethics approval for their research more difficult, or even impossible. We offer suggestions for breaking the impasse, including more interactions between ethics committees and researchers; development of tailored guidelines; and more case studies reflecting on ethics processes.