Online Library

VOX-Pol Blog post.

This report outlines the results of a programme trialling
a methodology for identifying individuals who are
demonstrating signs of radicalisation on social media,
and engaging these individuals in direct, personalised
and private ‘counter-conversations’ for the purpose of
de-radicalisation from extremist ideology and
disengagement from extremist movements. This is
the first programme globally which has trialled the
delivery of online interventions in a systematised
and scaled fashion.

Counter-radicalisation is resource-hungry; policy development and implementation, interventions through the criminal justice system, and bespoke one-to-one engagements outside of it are all costly. In contrast, counter narrative campaigns ostensibly offer a simpler proposition. By engaging with various audiences, campaigners from both the state and civil society can seek to reduce the number of people turning to extremism, question their commitment where they do engage, and ultimately hasten their exit. Despite this allure, the reality of counter narrative campaigns is a conceptually confusing landscape, sometimes based on sketchy theoretical understandings and limited evidence on outcomes.

This chapter provides an overview of counter narratives. It begins by setting out some of the alternative conceptualisations, such as counter and alternative messaging. Building on this, it then identifies some of the theoretical underpinnings of different approaches and explores some of the tools that campaigners use in different settings. It then goes on to look in more depth at how counter narrative campaigning has been evaluated previously, and emergent normative questions around the practice.

ISIS and other international terrorist organizations rely on the Internet to disseminate their extremist rhetoric and to recruit people to their cause, particularly through popular online social media applications. Any meaningful counterterrorism strategy must, therefore, account for the ways in which terrorist organizations use the Internet to prey on young, manipulable minds who are drawn to radical ideas and propaganda and to the desire to serve a cause larger than themselves. This article outlines the ways in which extremist organizations use the Internet to ensnare new recruits, analyzes the implications of cyber-recruitment on existing counterterrorism techniques, and suggests ways in which the U.S. government can work with Internet service providers and other major cyber corporations to better address this growing threat.

Facebook serves more than 1.5 billion people globally. Although the majority of people use the site for positive purposes, there are some who use the platform in negative ways. With that in mind, Facebook has created a set of policies – its Community Standards – detailing what type of content people can and cannot post. For instance, Facebook prohibits and removes hate speech and does not allow dangerous organisations (defined as groups that engage in terrorist or organised criminal activity) to have a presence on Facebook. Content that supports or promotes those groups is removed. However, sometimes people post content which other users may consider hateful or extreme, but which does not violate Facebook’s policies.

To counter this type of disagreeable or extremist content, Facebook has publicly stated that it believes counter-speech is not only potentially more effective, but also more likely to succeed in the long run. Counter-speech is a common, crowd-sourced response to extremist or hateful content. Extreme posts are often met with disagreement, derision and countercampaigns.

Combating extremism in this way has some advantages: it is faster, more flexible and responsive, and capable of dealing with extremism from anywhere and in any language; and it retains the principle of free and open public spaces for debate. However, the forms counter-speech takes are as varied as the extremism it argues against. It is also likely that it is not always as effective as it could be; and some types of counter-speech could potentially even be counter-productive. In the light of its belief in the power of counter-speech and the growing interest in a more rigorous and evidence-led approach to understanding it better, Facebook commissioned Demos to undertake this research report, examining the extent to which different types of counter-speech are produced and shared on Facebook.

Circa 1,5 miliardi di persone utilizzano Facebook su scala globale. Sebbene la maggioranza lo usi a scopi positivi, ce ne sono alcune che usano questa piattaforma in modo negativo. Partendo da questo presupposto, Facebook ha creato delle politiche, ossia gli Standard della Comunità, che elencano quale tipo di contenuto possa essere condiviso, e quale no. Ad esempio, Facebook proibisce e rimuove i commenti che incitano all’odio, definendoli “contenuti che attaccano direttamente una persona (o un gruppo di persone) in virtu’ di: razza, etnia, nazionalità di origine, affiliazione religiosa, orientamento sessuale, sesso, genere o identità di genere, disabilità o malattia”. Nonostante i contenuti che incitano all’odio non siano permessi, a volte le persone condividono contenuti sgradevoli o inquietanti che, tuttavia, non violano le politiche di Facebook.

Al fine di contrastare questo genere di contenuti estremisti e spiacevoli, Facebook ha dichiarato pubblicamente che il counter-speech (N.d.T.: il replicare, il controbattere), insieme ai mezzi che la piattaforma prevede per incoraggiarlo, debba rivestire un ruolo importante. Facebook ritiene non solo che, potenzialmente, tale approccio possa essere più efficace per affrontare il problema, ma che possa anche essere quello vincente nel lungo periodo.