No.924
Any discussion about terrorism must first deal with the problem of defining terrorism. Much like child pornography, most people know what it is, but have a hard time determining where it starts and where it ends. The ideological nature of terrorist actions means that one man’s terrorist is another’s “paramilitary forces”, and a vicious attack can become a demonstration of justified anger if reported by different channels. One central aspect in which most seem to agree, is that what differs terrorists from common criminals is the use of a political justification for their actions, instead of immediate personal gain (after all, if personal gain was the goal there would be no suicide bombers). A terrorist action can never be seen from a neutral perspective: it is always distorted by the political lens of the broadcaster and of the receiver.
This last condition had proven to be a problem for terrorists, as for the most part media has been a passive medium: the audience must go after the sources of information and look for data themselves. TV broadcasts, newspapers, radio shows: all of these are legitimate and recognized sources of information with access to extensive apparatus that allows them to investigate, edit and transmit reports of events. But more important than the technology is the legitimacy, the idea that they are the rightful informers and the bearers of the truth. This remained the accepted system of news transmission for a long time, but the status quo was challenged with the Digital Revolution.
The ability of creating one’s own website greatly increased individual’s power when it came to making their message public. Despite the lack of professional development, these early websites significantly lessened the difference in reach between the common man (or the terrorist) and the established media outlets. A website can be accessed anywhere in the world, at any time, and provide the viewer with information that they were previously deprived off. And all of this for free.
The second level of advancement was the infiltration of media sharing platforms by terrorist networks. Sites like youtube allow the militants to share both ideological and training material with no risk or cost for themselves, while reaching huge audiences (which are bound to include individuals vulnerable to their message). As the credibility of mainstream media decreases, alternative sources for news become more and more attractive, and many times the ideological agenda is dismissed in favor of the novelty or the plurality of ideas. Perhaps even more worrying than the huge audience that these sites receive (youtube alone is localized in 75 countries and available in 61 languages, streaming over 3 billion videos per day) is the recommendation system, which links similar videos and gives the user the option to spend hours and hours watching the same kind of material.
1/2
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.925
But the most worrying trend has been the use of social media to spread the militant’s messages. These platforms not only allow the sharing of material, but open a direct line of dialogue between the broadcaster and their audience. Reception to material can be easily assessed, allowing for messages to be adapted for greater effectiveness. Questions and criticism can be answered publicly, again bringing the militant and the target audience closer together. The variety of media that can be shared makes it possible for persons with many preferences and resources to be contacted. Finally, the live updates of events often mean that the first reports about an attack come from the terrorist’s perspective.
All of these channels of communication have increased the effectiveness of terrorism by orders of magnitude, with marginal increases in expense and risk. Propaganda, recruiting and training can happen without ever being contact between the recruit and trainers, making lone-wolf attacks ever more likely. Even when terrorists do choose to operate in cells, the connection between cells is dwindling, except for the ideological motivation. The electronic Jihad has proven to be a very profitable initiative.
Naturally, none of this is being ignored by the governments who deal with terrorist threats. Measures are being taken to prevent that terrorist propaganda and training can be distributed online, and the location and monitoring of individuals that exhibit interest in these matters is standard practice. This leads us back to the initial problem: defining terrorism. For every ISIL wannabe that is under scrutiny because he liked some nasheed there are several more “potential domestic terrorists” who present such worrying behaviors as defending their rights to bear arms and demanding freedom of speech in colleges. The arms race is now between those who want to make themselves heard and known without being located, and those who want to suppress their message and find them, while fighting under the flag of freedom.
In conclusion, the evolution and massive expansion of social media, as well as its integration with our daily lives, is perhaps one of the best things to happen to terrorists in the last decades. It is also quite convenient for those that preach for more surveillance and control over information transmission. Those who suffer, as it is usually the case, are the uninvolved civilians who are attacked, targeted, lied to, monitored and silenced in the eternal struggle between evil and maybe-less-evil.
2/2
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.