Quantcast
Connect with us

Can taking down websites really stop terrorists and hate groups?

Published

on

In the wake of an explosion in London on September 15, President Trump called for cutting off extremists’ access to the internet.

ADVERTISEMENT

Racists and terrorists, and many other extremists, have used the internet for decades and adapted as technology evolved, shifting from text-only discussion forums to elaborate and interactive websites, custom-built secure messaging systems and even entire social media platforms.

Our research has examined various online communities populated by radical and extremist groups. And two of us were on the team that created the U.S. Extremist Crime Database, an open-source database helping scholars better understand the criminal behaviors of jihadi, far-right and far-left extremists. Analysis of that data demonstrates that having an online presence appears to help hate groups stay active over time. (One of the oldest far-right group forums, Stormfront, has been online in some form since the early 1990s.)

But recent efforts to deny these groups online platforms will not kick hate groups, nor hate speech, off the web. In fact, some scholars theorize that attempts to shut down hate speech online may cause a backlash, worsening the problem and making hate groups more attractive to marginalized and stigmatized people, groups and movements.

Fighting an impossible battle

Like regular individuals and corporations, extremist groups use social media and the internet. But there have been few concerted efforts to eliminate their presence from online spaces. For years, Cloudflare, a company that provides technical services and protection against online attacks, has been a key provider for far-right groups and jihadists, withstanding harsh criticism.

The company refused to act until a few days after the violence in Charlottesville. As outrage built around the events and groups involved, pressure mounted on companies providing internet services to the Daily Stormer, a major hate site whose members helped organize the demonstrations that turned fatal. As other service providers stopped working with the site, Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince emailed his staff that he “woke up … in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the internet.”

ADVERTISEMENT

It may seem like a good first step to limit hate groups’ online activity – thereby keeping potential supporters from learning about them and deciding to participate. And a company’s decision may demonstrate to other customers its willingness to take hard stances against hate speech.

But that decision can cause problems: Prince criticized his own role, saying, “No one should have that power” to decide who should and shouldn’t be able to be online. And he made clear that the move was not a signal of a new company policy.

Further, as a sheer practical matter, the distributed global nature of the internet means no group can be kept offline entirely. All manner of extremist groups have online operations – and despite efforts by mainstream sites like Facebook and Twitter, they are still able to recruit people to far-right groups and the jihadist movement. Even the Daily Stormer itself has managed to remain online after being booted from the mainstream internet, finding new life as a site on the dark web.

ADVERTISEMENT

Drawing attention

Efforts to knock extremists offline may also have counterproductive results, helping the targeted groups recruit and radicalize new members. The fact that their websites have been taken down can become a badge of honor for those who are blocked or removed. For instance, Twitter users affiliated with IS who were blocked or banned at one point are often able to reactivate their accounts and use their experience as a demonstration of their commitment.

When a particular site is under fire, people who hold similar beliefs may be drawn to support the group, finding themselves motivated by a perceived opportunity to express views that are opposed by socially powerful companies or organization. In fact, radicalization scholars have found that some extremist groups actively seek out harsh penalties from criminal justice agencies and governments, in an effort to exploit perceived overreactions for a public relations advantage that also aids their recruitment efforts.

ADVERTISEMENT

Relations between tech companies and police

Internet companies’ decisions about online expression also affect the difficult relationship between the technology industry and law enforcement. There are, for example, many examples of cooperation between web hosting providers and police investigating child pornography or other crimes. But policies and practices vary widely and can depend on the circumstances of the crime or the nature of the police request.

For example, Apple refused to help the FBI retrieve information from an iPhone used by a man who shot 14 people in San Bernardino, California, in 2015. The company said it wanted to avoid setting a precedent that could put its customers at risk of intrusive or unfair investigations in the future. And Apple has since substantially increased its protections for data stored on its devices.

All of this suggests the tech industry, law enforcement and policymakers must develop a more measured and coordinated approach to the removal of extremist and terrorist content online. Tech companies may intend to be creating a safer and more inclusive environment for users – but they may actually encourage radicalization and simultaneously create precedents for removing content in the face of public outcry, regardless of legal or moral obligations.

ADVERTISEMENT

The ConversationTo date, these concerns have arisen suddenly and briefly only in the wake of specific events, like 9/11 or Charlottesville. And while opponents may shut down one or more hate sites, the site will likely pop back up elsewhere, maybe even stronger. The only way to really eliminate this kind of online content is to decrease the number of people who support it.

Thomas Holt, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University; Joshua D. Freilich, Professor of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, and Steven Chermak, Professor of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

ADVERTISEMENT

Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

2020 Election

Here is why these Nevadans are betting on Sanders

Published

on

LAS VEGAS — Any doubts that Nevadans wouldn't show up for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) were quickly squashed by the amount of people lined up to get into his Friday night rally in Las Vegas on the eve of the Nevada caucus: an estimated 2,020, according to his campaign. One would have been forgiven for assuming the crowd spilling out the main entrance and down the street had lined up to get into one of the city's hottest shows, not a "Get Out the Vote" event. Despite stereotypes that Sanders only draws support from the young (and mostly white), the crowd was visibly diverse in age, ethnicity and race. And anyone who didn't arrive already wearing the requisite Bernie gear had plenty of opportunities to buy some as they waited to enter the venue.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Roger Stone’s dream of booting judge for sentencing comments brutally crushed by ex-US Attorney: ‘He’s met his match’

Published

on

Appearing on MSNBC on Saturday afternoon, former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance crushed any hopes former Donald Trump associate Roger Stone might have that his prison sentence will be voided due to comments made by the presiding judge in his federal trial.

Speaking with host Alex Witt, Vance left no doubt Stone's latest legal gambit will collapse just like his previous attempts to squirm out of his trial did.

"Stone's legal team says that Judge Amy Berman Jackson's assertion that the jurors served with integrity shows bias," host Witt stated. "Do you buy that argument and legally would that be enough to get the judge dismissed from the case?"

Continue Reading
 

Commentary

You’re a frog in a pot and Donald Trump is turning up the heat

Published

on

Welcome to another edition of What Fresh Hell?, Raw Story’s roundup of news items that might have become controversies under another regime, but got buried – or were at least under-appreciated – due to the daily firehose of political pratfalls, unhinged tweet storms and other sundry embarrassments coming out of the current White House.

"Trump has instructed his White House to identify and force out officials across his administration who are not seen as sufficiently loyal," reported The Washington Post this week. It's one element in "a post-impeachment escalation that administration officials say reflects a new phase of a campaign of retribution and restructuring ahead of the November election." It's unclear what criteria they are using to define loyalty to this president*, but it's important to understand a few things about this story.

Continue Reading
 
 
close-image