Online Library

Social media’s role in the spread and evolution of extremism is a focus of intense study. Online extremists have been involved in the spread of online hate, mis/disinformation, and real-world violence. However, the overwhelming majority of existing work has focused on right-wing extremism. In this paper, we perform a first of its kind large-scale, data-driven study exploring left-wing extremism. We focus on “tankies,” a left-wing community that first arose in the 1950s in support of hardline actions of the USSR and has evolved to support what they call “actually existing socialist countries,” e.g., CCP run China, the USSR, former soviet countries, and North Korea. We collect 1.3M posts from 53K authors from tankies subreddits, and explore the position of tankies within the broader far-left community on Reddit. Among other things, we find that tankies are clearly on the periphery of the larger far-left community. When examining the contents of posts, we find misalignments and conceptual homomorphisms that confirm the description of tankies in the theoretical work. We also discover that tankies focus more on state-level political events rather than social issues in comparison to other far-left communities. Finally, we show that tankies exhibit some of the same worrying behaviors as right-wing extremists, e.g., relatively high toxicity and an organized response to deplatforming events.

This systematic review seeks to position online radicalisation within whole system frameworks incorporating individual, family, community and wider structural influences, whilst reporting evidence of public mental health approaches for individuals engaging in radical online content. Methods: Authors searched Medline (via Ovid), PsycInfo (via Ebscohost) and Web of Science (Core Collection), with the use of Boolean operators across ‘extremism’, ‘online content’, and ‘intervention’. Results: Following assessment of full text, all retrieved papers had to be excluded. Results from six excluded articles which did not fit inclusion criteria but identified theoretical relationships between all three elements of online extremism, psychological outcomes, and intervention strategy, were discussed. Authors found no articles outlining public mental health approaches to specifically online radicalisation. Conclusions: There is an immediate need for further research in this field given the increase in different factions of radicalised beliefs resulting from online, particularly social media, usage.

The 2023 Supreme Court case Twitter v. Taamneh found that defendant social media companies were not liable for aiding and abetting a terrorist attack overseas. The Court alluded to the existence of an alternative set of facts that might alter their analysis or produce a different outcome. This Comment explores those “other contexts” and seeks to identify what factors could produce a successful Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) aiding and abetting claim against a social media company for an act of terrorism overseas. This is difficult, in part, because the framework for aiding and abetting liability provided in JASTA is seemingly incompatible with the operations of social media companies. To better evaluate how JASTA’s framework should apply to social media companies, both JASTA cases that do not involve social media companies and aiding and abetting cases derived from other sources are analyzed for their relevance to the social media context.

Ultimately, this Comment concludes that it would take an extraordinary set of facts to find social media companies secondarily liable for an act of terrorism. This is, in part, due to the nature of how social media operates and continues to progress at a rapid pace. The increasing role that social media plays in society highlights why deterring further Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) use of social media is critical; as avenues to recruitment and international planning increase, the risk to the United States’ national security also increases. Given that JASTA is not a solution, this Comment suggests other avenues to encourage social media companies to heighten their detection of FTO activity and prevent future attacks.

This chapter examines Europol’s Internet Referral Unit (EU IRU) and its role in the privatized governance of online media within the broader context of transnational law enforcement and European counter-terrorism policy. Established in 2015, the EU IRU monitors online content and recommends takedowns to hosting platforms based on breaches of terms of service, not legal violations. By analyzing the discursive practices of the EU IRU, this chapter seeks to understand the (in)security dynamics of online radicalization and assess associated human rights concerns. The core question addressed is how Europol frames radicalization and Internet content. The chapter situates the EU IRU within the wider discourse on counter-radicalization, arguing for a deeper understanding of radicalization as perceived by professionals in the field. A detailed policy analysis highlights the unit’s referral and takedown activities, scrutinizing Europol’s framing of technology as a security issue and radicalization as a problem exacerbated by online communication. The study reveals significant issues such as over-blocking, lack of due process, and absence of recourse for affected users, emphasizing the ethical and human rights implications of private companies acting as arbiters of speech. The conclusion critiques Europol’s approach, noting its inconsistency and inefficacy, and underscores the necessity of transparent and judicially overseen content regulation. This chapter calls for a re-evaluation of current counter-radicalization strategies, advocating for more holistic approaches that balance security needs with fundamental rights and democratic accountability.

Method

Results

Radicalization is a global event affecting different countries and present in different historical contexts. Psychiatrists can help in the analysis of radicalization in individuals who operate autonomously from more radicalized groups. These lone actors or lone wolves are more difficult to spot as there is no unique identification because they operate as self-determined women or men. A focus of the current study is on the radicalization of children and women. The use of ethnographic research also using Internet sources has provided satisfactory results in the analysis of radicalization while reducing the risk and difficulties of approaching a sample population (terrorists, lone wolves, and radical groups) that, most of the time, is remote, dangerous and concealed to public scrutiny. Emphasis is also provided to the stages of development of radicalized thought and how radicalization can be understood in terms of cognitive and social development of the lone-wolf terrorist. The authors also explore how a radicalized leader can lever on the vulnerability of some individuals to radicalize them. Besides, the authors approach radicalized thought also as a logical fallacy and as a sign of dualistic thinking. Hence, a mix of cognitive, logical, and psychiatric triggers is analyzed in their potential to radicalize.