Online Library

In setting out the work program for the past 12 months, the shared objective of the group was to collaborate across industry, government, and civil society “to map contentsharing algorithms and processes used by industry that may facilitate consumption of content that may increase user interest in or amplify terrorist and violent extremist content and consider positive interventions and risk mitigation points.” This report focuses on the second part of the objective in considering positive interventions and risk mitigation points. GIFCT’s mission is focused on preventing terrorists and violent extremists from exploiting digital platforms. For the purposes of this work we have taken a content-agnostic approach and sought to map positive interventions already used in the countering violent extremism (CVE) space as well as those that have been used elsewhere but could be applied to CVE. The use of counter and alternative narratives is recognized as an online CVE mechanism for connecting users to alternative sources of information. Yet there is less awareness of the uses of other forms of positive interventions.

In setting out the work program for the past 12 months, the group’s shared objective was to collaborate across industry, government, and civil society “to map content-sharing algorithms and processes used by industry that may facilitate consumption of content that may increase user interest in or amplify terrorist and violent extremist content and consider positive interventions and risk mitigation points.” This report focuses on the first part of that objective: To map content-sharing algorithms and processes used by industry. The potential role of content-sharing algorithms in radicalization and violent extremist recruitment continues to be an issue of focus. Yet there is little understanding about what those algorithms are and how they might be misused, contribute to radicalization, or be exploited by violent extremist groups and bad actors. This document is the first step in contributing to that understanding.

The multistakeholder Global Network Initiative (GNI) reviewed more than twenty recent governmental initiatives that claim to address various forms of online harm related to user-generated content — a practice we refer to broadly as “content regulation.” We focused on proposals that could shift existing responsibilities and incentives related to user-generated content. Our analysis illustrates the ways that good governance and human rights principles provide time-tested guidance for
how laws, regulations, and policy actions can be most appropriately and effectively designed and carried out. Because content regulation is primarily focused on and likely to impact digital communication and content, we use international human rights principles related to freedom of expression and privacy as our primary lens.

We welcome the increased focus amongst policymakers on the role played by content personalisation and other algorithmic recommendation systems on online platforms. Such scrutiny is warranted. Terrorist groups exploit platforms that make use of recommendation algorithms, and there are examples of individuals coming into contact with terrorist and violent extremist content via platforms using content personalisation. However, we are concerned that the current debate is, on a policy level, based on an incomplete understanding of terrorist use of the internet, and that a focus on content personalisation is a distraction from more important steps that should be taken to tackle terrorist use of the internet.

As terrorist, extremist, and hateful content has become widespread on social media, platforms have responded with content moderation – the flagging, review, and enforcement of rules and standards on user-generated content online. This chapter provides an introduction to contemporary content moderation practices, technologies, and contexts and outlines key debates in the field. The chapter explores the changing regulatory context around hate speech and terrorist content online in the EU. This changing context, such as Germany’s NetzDG law and the EU’s 2021 regulation on terrorist content online, is setting new standards and statutory requirements for platforms and websites. While content moderation is a form of self-regulation run by companies themselves, the regulatory context is shifting towards multistakeholder governance. This chapter then maps key stakeholders and technologies in content moderation as they pertain to radicalisation, looking at trusted flaggers, Internet Referral Units, and automated content moderation. After providing an overview of the regulatory context, stakeholders, and technologies in content moderation, the chapter explores normative questions about deplatforming, how transparency hinders research and accountability in content moderation, and explores inconsistencies in the enforcement of content moderation rules, particularly in the case of the far right. By providing an outline of the regulatory context, mapping multistakeholder arrangements in content moderation, and exploring key debates, this chapter provides readers with an introduction to the growing literature on content moderation and countering radicalisation.

VOX-Pol Blog Post.