Online Library

Societal crises, such as COVID-19, produce societal instability and create a fertile ground for radicalization. Extremists exploit such crises by distributing disinformation to amplify uncertainty and distrust. Based on these developments, this study presents a longitudinal analysis across three different non-violent extremist ideologies in the UK (Islamist, far right and eco-radicals). As part of the study, public social media channels Twitter/X, Facebook, and Telegram) of Britain First, 5 Pillars, and Earth First! were analyzed using a computational language classifier of over 36,000 posts between 2016 and 2021. The increasing prevalence of conspiracy narratives, as well as violent, hateful, and threatening language among the corpus indicates that radicalization dynamics were present and heightened, pre-, during, and post-Pandemic.

Psychological theories of mobilization tend to focus on explaining people’s motivations for action, rather than mobilization (“activation”) processes. To investigate the online behaviors associated with mobilization, we compared the online communications data of 26 people who subsequently mobilized to right-wing extremist action and 48 people who held similar extremist views but did not mobilize (N = 119,473 social media posts). In a three-part analysis, involving content analysis (Part 1), topic modeling (Part 2), and machine learning (Part 3), we showed that communicating ideological or hateful content was not related to mobilization, but rather mobilization was positively related to talking about violent action, operational planning, and logistics. Our findings imply that to explain mobilization to extremist action, rather than the motivations for action, theories of collective action should extend beyond how individuals express grievances and anger, to how they equip themselves with the “know-how” and capability to act.