Online Library

In the wake of the international refugee crisis, racist attitudes are becoming more publicly evident across the European Union. Propelled by the attacks in Köln on New Year’s Eve 2015 and harsher public sentiments on immigration, vigilante gangs have emerged in various European cities. These gangs mobilize through social media networks and claim to protect citizens from alleged violent and sexual attacks by refugees. This article analyzes how racist actors use social media to mobilize and organize street politics targeting refugees/immigrants. The aim is to explore the relation between social media and anti-refugee mobilization in a time of perceived insecurity and forced migration. The study uses the vigilante network Soldiers of Odin as a specific case, looking at (1) how they communicate through social media, (2) how they are represented in the large “alternative” space of right-wing online sites, and (3) how they are represented in traditional mainstream news. Using a critical adaption of Cammaerts’ theory of “mediation opportunity structure,” the article explicates the (inverted) rationale of racist online networks. Using quantitative and qualitative content analysis, both social media content and traditional news media are examined. The results show that although racist actors succeed in utilizing many of the opportunities embedded in social media communication and protest logic, they are also subject to constraints, such as a lack of public support and negative framing in news media. The article calls for more research on the (critical) relationship between uncivil engagement and social media networks.

Given the rise of media and information technology, the debate over anti-blasphemy laws has become one of international importance. Cutting across different regions and faiths, blasphemy laws have triggered instability, empowered extremists, and increased sectarian violence. With frequently vague wording, they are open to whimsical interpretations, resulting in scores of human rights abuses, and violating international standards of free expression, religion, and belief.

While many religious traditions have taboos against blaspheming the sacred, violence related to allegations of blasphemy is particularly prevalent across Islamic states. In some Islamic states, scores of human rights abuses, committed in the name of fighting blasphemy, constitute obstacles to reform and democracy, and enhance the likelihood of sectarian violence. Blasphemy laws often help majority viewpoints to triumph against those of dissenters. As a result, religious minorities, free-thinkers, and political dissidents in Muslim majority countries are frequently targeted by blasphemy laws, weakening social cohesion and constraining free expression.

Whether online or offline, high-profile allegations of blasphemy have affected foreign relations and have raised new policy stakes for relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world. In the digital age, verbal expressions that were once limited to the immediate geographic vicinity are now broadcast globally at lightning speed. It is thus becoming increasingly important for governments and social media companies to implement policies that protect pluralism and democracy. Social media companies must take action to ensure the protection of both their users and uphold global standards of free speech. The U.S. government also has a duty to encourage pluralism and freedom of expression around the world. There are certain steps the United States should take to oppose anti-blasphemy laws in a broader effort to curb violent extremism and promote the peaceful expression of religious views, which is essential to democratic reform.

VOX-Pol Blog Post.

VOX-Pol Blog Post.

VOX-Pol Blog post.

Hate speech and toxic communication online is on the rise. Responses to this issue tend to offer technical (automated) or non-technical (human content moderation) solutions, or see hate speech as a natural product of hateful people. In contrast, this article begins by recognizing platforms as designed environments that support particular practices while discouraging others. In what ways might these design architectures be contributing to polarizing, impulsive, or antagonistic behaviors? Two platforms are examined: Facebook and YouTube. Based on engagement, Facebook’s Feed drives views but also privileges incendiary content, setting up a stimulus–response loop that promotes outrage expression. YouTube’s recommendation system is a key interface for content consumption, yet this same design has been criticized for leading users towards more extreme content. Across both platforms, design is central and influential, proving to be a productive lens for understanding toxic communication.