Online Library

The literature shows that there are two fields that can feed radicalization, online and offline domains. However, the arbitrary separation has been challenged since radicalised individuals use both domains for their activities and they seamlessly move across the two (Pauwels & Schils, 2016; Gill et al., 2017; Whittaker, 2022). Furthermore, most scholars today agree that radicalization is not a linear or a step-by-step process, but rather a multifactorial phenomenon (Frissen, 2021), where different mechanisms operate in different ways for different people in different contexts (Borum, 2011). This report presents the main theories and ways radical groups influence and attract individuals online, and the most common tools and strategies governments use to counter its impact.

The policy brief makes the case that policymakers and practitioners need to consider who the state defines as ‘extremists.’ In the West, terrorism and violent extremism are seen as the most radical expressions of anti-government resistance. Things, however, look different in the Global South where some governments effectively foster extremists of their own while targeting legitimate and often nonviolent opposition. Echoes of such an approach are also present in Europe where certain (semi-) authoritarian governments securitise their responses to political dissent while seemingly drawing inspiration from more autocratic regimes outside this continent. Thus, in their case, an attempt to counter real or imagined extremism could consequently and likewise lead them to foster extremists of their own.

Current literature on online criminal and deviant groups recognizes the role of online forums in the transfer of knowledge and socialization of members, but debates on the role of the Internet in the socialization and radicalization processes in the context of online extremist groups. This study contributes to the discussion by examining online radicalization process through the use of social learning theory and social network analysis. This innovation allows for assessment on the impact of online interactions with forum members on radicalization process. Findings found strong support of differential association and differential reinforcement, but showed the possibility of other mechanisms, such as self-radicalization, at play. Findings from the study highlight the need to for theory integration, the inclusion of online peer association, and replication to address the complex phenomenon of online radicalization.

Do social media companies exacerbate antisemitism and hate through their own recommendation and amplification tools? We investigated how four of the biggest social media platforms treated users who searched for or engaged with content related to anti-Jewish tropes, conspiracy theories, and other topics. Three of them–Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter1 (now known as X after a rebranding by owner Elon Musk)–filled their feeds with far more antisemitic content and conspiratorial accounts and recommended the most hateful influencers and pages to follow. One platform, YouTube, did not.

In this joint study by the ADL Center for Technology and Society (CTS) and Tech Transparency Project (TTP), researchers created six test personas of different ages and genders and set up accounts for them on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube. Researchers had them search each platform for a basket of terms related to conspiracy theories as well as popular internet personalities, commentators, and video games. The study then examined the content that the platforms’ algorithms recommended to these hypothetical users.

Do social media and search companies exacerbate antisemitism and hate through their own design and system functions? In this joint study by the ADL Center for Technology and Society (CTS) and Tech Transparency Project (TTP), we investigated search functions on both social media platforms and Google. Our results show how these companies’ own tools–such as autocomplete and auto-generation of content–made finding and engaging with antisemitism easier and faster.1 In some cases, the companies even helped create the content themselves.

Our researchers compiled a list of 130 hate groups and movements from ADL’s Glossary of Extremism, picking terms that were tagged in the glossary with all three of the following categories: “groups/movements,” “white supremacist,” and “antisemitism.”2 The researchers then typed each term into the respective search bars of Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, and recorded the results.