HSM PRESS OFFICE @TWITTER
How much does social media play in acts of terrorism? How does social media facilitate the increased awareness, propaganda, and moving of information that ultimately facilitates terroristic agendas, exposure, and acts? And what can social psychology do to remedy such instances of terrorism?
It is well established that social media has a strong influence on how, why, to what degree, and how fast information is spread throughout the world. In that, and with the ever changing, fast forward world of smart phones, internet availability, and technology, the route that news and information move is constantly changing and becoming far more streamlined (Rosengard, Tucker-McLaughlin, & Brown, 2014). As such, the use of social media has ventured into every avenue of communication currently supported by technology (Rob van den Dam, 2010).
It is in this position that it is completely understandable that anyone with any message would seek the use of such media platforms to project their agenda. It has long been established that terrorism—whereby the climate of extreme fear is directed to a larger audience and hints future events that escape typically associated norms of regulating disputes—needs a mechanism to spread (Wilkinson, 1997). As such, the creation of a socialistic symbiosis between mass media and terrorists has developed (Wilkinson, 1997). This is evident through a common need for both network ratings by sensationalistic broadcasts and terrorism’s core function—they both mutually feed from this relationship. Though social media platforms, in the form of Twitter and Facebook, rely upon a different agenda for intrinsic success, the presence and power of networked social communication continues to serve as a symbiosis with terrorism. In example, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) have used social media to project their ideals, instigate societal momentum, collect support, and seek recruits (Andrews & Schwartz, 2014). As such, and with recruiting in particular, this drives home the connection between violence and aggressive behavior—which has been strongly correlated by Hearold’s massive 1986 meta-analysis—which saw an increase in violent behavior after watching media violence. Additionally, during the 2013 Nairobi mall terrorist attack, Al-Shabaab’s media collective claimed responsibility through Twitter while providing live updates, photos, and threats of future action (Ortiz, 2013). These are just two examples of how terrorists utilize social media to their advantage.
Apart from this connection, social media has been a nightmare for military and strategic information control. From my time in the military I personally witnessed the rise in popularity of social media, how it was controlled, and what damage it could do to operational security. Information, locations, units, positions, movements, ideas, orders, etc. are all extremely important in the world of military movements and war. Having an individual means of communicating such information to the entire world has never been easier. As such, the military has dramatically increased their awareness, access to, and reprimands for divulging such information via social media platforms. It’s well known that people are watching that want such information and it’s well controlled as to how much military members can communicate. In terms of military intelligence the concept of piecing together information from broad sources to build combat intelligence is very established.
More recently, or at least comparative to my experience in the military, various intelligence agencies have expressed their concern with how social media platforms provide an easy audience for terroristic ventures. Most notably, British intelligence has expressed this such problem and called for reforms directed to limit such actions of terrorists.
In sum, the platform, reach, and ability for social media to serve as a mechanism to project terrorism is upon us. The underlying mechanism for which bolsters social media symbiotically supports and acts as a mechanism for terrorism. Though there are significant pros and cons associated with social media, Facebook has pushed through to reform such issues and to limit the reach of such actions. Additionally, there have been many notions of legal action against such social media outlets—as the material support statues, 18 U.S.C. § 2339A and § 2339B, fall directly inline with the 2010 Supreme Court ruling of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project that allows prosecution to social media outlets (dispite the 1st Amendment) for materially supporting terrorist factions (Knox, 2014). As such, extending criminal intent to supporting terrorist activities through knowingly providing a supporting communication network has inevitably motivated Facebook and Twitter to realign their stance on openness to the world and terrorists in particular.
Conversely, social psychology stands at a unique place in the fight against world-wide terrorism. Understanding how differing factions of people relate, exist, and prosper is paramount and foundational to applied social psychology. In that, three areas of intervention have been proposed that may lead to better relations and coexistence between such: reducing intergroup conflict, developing incentives for the reduction of terrorism, and socializing youth to oppose violence as an answer to problems (Plous & Zimbardo, 2004). In that, equating status and finding a mutual reliance upon opposing factions can support the reduction of intergroup conflict—by way of social contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954). Unfortunately, particular social limitations do exist with relations to terrorism—in the form of restrictions of negotiations and communication. As such, employing the last two ideas may provide stronger traction towards progress—developing incentives and changing youth opinion on violence. Both of which, in sum, can benefit from a collective initiative towards international agreements that support reductions in the education of violence in third world countries and incentivizing reductions in terrorism (Plous & Zimbardo, 2004).
From a sociological standpoint, the presence and mold for which communication has evolved has stood as a hard issue to control. Terrorists are difficult to regulate as they often depart from embedded sociological norms that tend to generalize and provide some form of predictive action. In that, controlling areas that are controllable are at the heart of social interventions that seek to mold society towards positive results.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Andrews, N. & Schwartz, F. (2014). Islamic state pushes social-media battle with west. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/isis-pushes-social-media-battle-with-west-1408725614
Hearold, S. (1986). A synthesis of 1,043 effects of television on social behavior. In G. Comstock (Ed.), Public communication and behavior (Vol. 1 pp. 66-135). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. I (2010).
Knox, E. (2014). The slippery slope of material support prosecutions: Social media support to terrorists. Hasting Law Journal, 66(1), 295-329.
Ortiz, E. (2013). Alleged twitter account taunts Kenyan officials following mall rampage. New York Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/terrorists-tweeting-new-account-claims-kenyan-mall-militants-article-1.1465961
Plous, S. L. & Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). How social science can reduce terrorism. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(3), B.9.
Rosengard, D., Tucker-McLaughlin, M., & Brown, T. (2014). Students and social news: How college students share news through social media. Electronic News, 8(2), 120-137.
van den Dam, R. (2010). Social media. Broadcast Engineering, 52(5), 18.
Wilkinson, P. (1997). The media and terrorism: A reassessment. Terrorism and Political Violence, 9(2), 51. doi:10.1080/09546559708427402
Written by: Morgan L. DeBusk-Lane