Giving Terrorism a Platform on Social Media

KOMPAS/DIDIE SW

.

“...Private American companies should not be operating as the propaganda megaphone of foreign terrorist organizations.” —Ted Poe (Chairman, House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade)

In his opinion piece “Time to Silence Terrorists on Social Media” (cnn.com, 25/2/2015), US Republican Congressman Ted Poe made this statement to rebuke Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Poe said that these social media platforms often act as giant megaphones that are used every day by Al Qaeda and Islamic State (IS) to spread their claims and messages of violence in the world.

With these giant megaphones, terror groups seek to bewitch the world, spread fear everywhere and delegitimize the power of states to protect their citizens.

On the pretext of protecting freedom of expression and helping intelligence agencies detect terror groups’ movements, social media companies and even governments seemed reluctant to act against these terror groups. The problem is that terrorism is continuously glorified on social media. Social media platforms have facilitated groups such as Al Qaeda and IS to reaffirm their existence as global terror networks.

Mark Zuckerberg was not wrong when he said that social media had facilitated billions of people to connect with one another at a completely unprecedented level. What he did not take into account was that this facilitation also extends to terror groups. They use social media intensively to recruit new members, collect donations, gain sympathy from Muslims, and spread fear and efforts to delegitimize states.

Internet freedom as a universal value also applies to these people, regardless of the fact that they share videos of hostages being beheaded and spread calls to eradicate various groups. Such freedoms have led to the global community spiraling into unease, hatred and violence.

The relationship between social media and terrorism has been an important issue in communications and defense studies. Experts have shown that terror groups are often fully aware of the strength of social media and are cunning at exploiting its power. The HD-quality videos they post on their YouTube channels showcase good technical skills in videography and propaganda.

No filter

In his 2012 study, Gabriel Weimann showed that 90 percent of communications within Al Qaeda and IS took place on social media. They used Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to gain Muslim sympathy, recruit new members and collect donations. Social media was chosen as it enables widespread and direct interaction without the filters and censors of mainstream media. Social media also forms ideological crowds that can communicate extensively, thereby helping the indoctrination of new terror cells.

Furthermore, social media is a theater of terror. Gruesome videos of beheadings can be spread throughout the world without any immediate attempt to ban them. Terror groups have high latitude in saying whatever they want in these videos. They understand that, no matter how sadistic and inhumane the videos are, they are popular among netizens who specifically hunt down these videos, apparently to satisfy their hidden desire for violence. Consequently, mainstream media will also use these videos to exploit their popularity.

Brian Jenkins (2014) also noted the huge importance of social media for terror groups. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube truly fulfill Al Qaeda’s needs as an international terror network that has limited mobility in real life. In hiding and with the eyes and ears of global intelligence agencies dead set on finding them, Al Qaeda needs cheap, user-friendly and effective means to reach out to its global constituents. Social media fulfills these requirements. While in hiding, Al Qaeda remains connected to the outside world at all times and can even spread fear through its propaganda of violence.

Social media has even transformed Al Qaeda’s strategy of terror. Direct violence against enemy targets is no longer its sole priority. Nowadays, using social media as a propaganda tool is as equally important, or even more important than, direct violence. Spreading its ideology, stimulating an endless cycle of terror and baiting governments to take extrajudicial measures to the detriment of their reputation as democracies are as important as committing direct violence. Spreading the belief in violent jihad is equally important as actual terror attacks. It is in this context, regardless of the success rate, that social media has become the epicenter of terror movements. Jenkins recorded that 90 percent of Al Qaeda’s activities were connected to social media.

Al Qaeda and IS leaders realize that using social media as their major battlefield is a risky move. They can be easily targeted by intelligence agencies and military operations. However, they have no other choice, and they believe that the benefits of using social media outweigh the risks. Degrading public trust in governments’ ability to maintain security and inspiring other terror networks to commit terror acts are seen as worthy goals, despite having to risk their safety amid the continuous security operations across many countries.

No man’s land

The question is then: just how effective is social media as a propaganda tool for terror groups? This is a controversial topic that has led to expert debates, much like the debates surrounding the effectiveness of a government shutting down social media accounts that promote radical views. The moment one account is deactivated, other similar accounts crop up. In this case, the government is in a cat-and-mouse game with the radical groups. Another problem is that deactivating the accounts will make it harder for intelligence agencies to monitor the movements of radical and terror groups. The transparency of terror groups on social media is seemingly beneficial in this regard.

Social media is like no man’s land. It is a giant public space that has yet to be institutionalized. Yet, it is widely used for countless purposes. The “rules of the game” for using social media and who is responsible for upholding them remain unclear. Laws and ethics for social media users have remained, for the most part, unclear. This lack of clarity also extends to the responsibility of social media companies. Do YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have no real responsibility in their services being used to propagate terror?

On the pretext of protecting Internet users’ freedom of opinion, these companies at first were reluctant to act against radical or terrorist accounts. However, to what extent is this “freedom of speech” argument relevant in the face of terrorists killing so many lives and glorifying their actions on social media?

The 2015 terror attack that killed 14 in San Bernardino, California, is interesting here. In the wake of the attack, social media companies were deemed responsible not only because they were found to be complicit in spreading the perpetrators’ terror videos. Furthermore, the companies also profited from the advertisements linked to the videos.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube live off the advertisements that target social media users based on their preferred content. When terror groups upload a video to a page, the social media companies do not merely allow space for the videos to be presented through their services, but also place ads related to the video’s content or are liked by the video’s target audience. Even if this is not deliberate, the commoditization of terror videos should lead to responsibility and liability.

ARSIP PRIBADI

Agus Sudibyo

Often, it is not the advertisers that determine the placement of their digital; it is the social media companies that decide where to place certain ads, whether by matching the content of the video and the ad or by matching the ad with the interests of the users who access the content.

In this context, many major global advertisers have been caught off guard when their ads were automatically attached to IS videos.

Anheuser-Busch, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson and many major US companies have pulled their ads from YouTube and filed protests against the company. In Europe, Audi, McDonald’s UK and L’Oreal were among the companies that pulled their digital ads from Google for the same reason. Can we imagine if an ad for Johnson & Johnson baby powder suddenly appeared before a video of a IS hostage beheading in Syria?

Agus Sudibyo, Director, Indonesia New Media Watch