Online Library

Far-right and involuntary celibate extremists are said to populate an “online extremist ecosystem” of digital media environments. Online violent extremists are said to use this “ecosystem” to access outcomes that were previously unattainable. Yet there remained fundamental knowledge gaps in understanding the advantageous and limits of using ecosystems to understand and address far-right and involuntary celibate online violent extremism. This foundational theoretical and empirical study critically assessed whether ecosystems offered a greater or lesser understanding of these communities in the Australian and Canadian context and examined how individual involvement in these communities is shaped by digital media software and hardware.

The issue of radicalization has drawn significant attention over the last decade, as high-profile mobilizations and far-right violence grow increasingly prevalent in the United States. This has been accompanied by a particular interest in radicalization in the online context, as far-right recruitment and organizing increasingly leverages the affordances of digital platforms. In this dissertation, I advance theoretical understandings of online radicalization processes by analyzing differential participation within one growing and under-examined segment of the far-right: secular male supremacist movements. Based on prior literature identifying increasing extremism in these spaces, and increasing instances of users moving between distinct but related communities, I address two specific research questions: 1) what individual and community-level factors drive differences in engagement in male supremacist communities; and 2) what individual and community-level factors predict user migration to more extreme male supremacist communities?

Researchers of risky topics have benefitted from a burgeoning literature on researcher safety, including that specifically focused on researching the far right. Much of this literature has focused on tackling urgent concerns and providing practical advice, targeting the individual and the institution. Drawing on 21 interviews with researchers of the far right and manosphere, this report complements these efforts by detailing how researcher safety is impacted by environmental factors. Focusing on three key stakeholders – the institution, the manager and the researcher themselves – the report illustrates how individual efforts and interactions between stakeholders have significant implications for safety and underlines the need to situate researchers within the academic context.

Arguing that barriers to safety pivot on both what is known about risk and what is possible to mitigate, the report highlights areas to focus on to improve both current and future practice. To examine the impact of stakeholders and how their interactions have an impact on safety, this report proposes a matrix highlighting the varying roles, responsibilities and capabilities of each actor. In doing so, it illustrates the necessity of understanding the researcher within a broader framework rather than focusing on the researcher in isolation. These findings contribute to concerns about the ability of researchers to safeguard themselves, and the importance of environmental factors in affecting the safety of researchers. Although focused on researchers of the far right, the findings are likely applicable to researchers of extremism more broadly, who face similar harms in the same environment.

The closed-door roundtable took place on 31 March 2025, and included both presentations across three sessions and participants from academia, civil society, advocacy groups, legal non-profit organisations and the private sector. The event provided a space to discuss online hate speech and discriminatory rhetoric – ranging from antisemitism, misogyny and anti-LGBTQI+ narratives to racism and xenophobia – as well as the implications of AI in their spread and amplification. Discussions centred around the complexities introduced by AI-generated and targeted hate speech, and explored potential responses, from regulatory measures and content moderation to educational initiatives promoting critical thinking skills. This conference report summarises key themes and points raised during the roundtable, none of which are attributable to individual participants and presenters.

The gaming ecosystem is increasingly observed with the concern that it could pose a threat to public safety, and research accumulates evidence for blatant extremism in the surrounding online space of games. Currently, a connection between gaming and extremism can be established through identity related processes, e.g., gaming-related radicalization elements, distal to gaming itself, such as gaming communities and culture. However, this also raises the question of what the precise function of proximal gaming factors, such as gameplay, mechanics, stories, or game-play motivations, is in the relationship between gaming and extremism. This article aims to shed light on the relation of gaming and extremism by identifying individual profiles of videogame playing based on gameplay motivations and linking them to indications of radical attitudes (here: xenophobia and violence acceptance) as well as conspiracy beliefs that can be associated with extremist beliefs. Further, we include marginalization and anomie as mediators to gain comparative and fine-grained information about the sole impact of gaming motives on radical attitudes. Our findings indicate that while few motivational profiles exhibit weak yet direct connections to radical attitudes, others display the opposite pattern, suggesting a more complex relationship. Marginalization and anomie strongly predict most radical outcome variables and mediate the relationship in most cases, however sometimes negatively. We only found one complex motivational profile that substantially leans toward late-stage radical attitudes, while for instance, dominant social motives clearly inhibit radical outcomes. The current study thus deflates any straightforward perspective on the becoming of a ‘radical gamer’.