Criminal Justice

iResearchNet




Criminal Justice > Criminology > Cyber Criminology > Online Radicalization and Extremism

Online Radicalization and Extremism




Online Radicalization and ExtremismOnline radicalization and extremism examine the processes through which individuals adopt increasingly extreme ideological beliefs and the willingness to support or commit violence through exposure to digital content, online communities, and technology-facilitated social dynamics. Within Cyber Criminology, online radicalization represents a critical intersection of digital technology and criminal behavior, as the internet and social media have become primary environments for the recruitment, indoctrination, and operational coordination of violent extremist actors across the ideological spectrum — from jihadist organizations such as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda to domestic violent extremists including white supremacist, accelerationist, and anti-government movements. The U.S. Intelligence Community has identified domestic violent extremism as the most lethal terrorism threat facing the homeland (Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2024), and research consistently documents the central role of online environments in contemporary radicalization pathways (Gill, Corner, Conway, Thornton, Bloom, & Horgan, 2017; Baugut & Neumann, 2020). This article examines the theoretical models, empirical evidence, platform dynamics, ideological landscape, counter-radicalization strategies, and legal frameworks associated with online radicalization and extremism within the broader field of Criminology.

Introduction

The relationship between the internet and radicalization has been a subject of scholarly and policy attention since the mid-2000s, when jihadist organizations first demonstrated the capacity to use online media for propaganda, recruitment, and operational planning (Sageman, 2008; Weimann, 2006). The Islamic State’s social media campaign of 2014–2016 — which employed sophisticated multimedia production, multi-platform distribution, and targeted messaging to recruit thousands of foreign fighters and inspire attacks in Western countries — elevated online radicalization from a niche concern to a central preoccupation of counterterrorism policy (Berger & Morgan, 2015; Winter, 2015). Simultaneously, the domestic violent extremist threat — particularly from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (RMVE) — grew in visibility and lethality, with attacks in Charleston (2015), Pittsburgh (2018), El Paso (2019), and Buffalo (2022) connected to online radicalization pathways that involved exposure to extremist content on social media, imageboards, and encrypted messaging platforms (Koehler, 2019; Moonshot CVE, 2021).

The challenge of understanding online radicalization lies in its multi-causal and non-deterministic character. Exposure to extremist content online is common — surveys suggest that a substantial minority of Americans encounter extremist material through social media — but the vast majority of those exposed do not radicalize to violence (Neumann, 2013). The process by which some individuals move from passive consumption of extremist content through ideological commitment to operational planning and violent action involves the interaction of individual psychological factors, social network dynamics, ideological frameworks, and environmental conditions that resist reduction to any single causal mechanism (Horgan, 2008; McCauley & Moskalenko, 2011). The internet’s role in this process is better understood as facilitative and amplificatory than as independently causal — it provides the content, the community, and the communication infrastructure through which radicalization occurs, but it does not produce radicalization in the absence of the psychological and social conditions that render individuals susceptible.




Theoretical Models of Online Radicalization

Pathway and Process Models

Scholarly understanding of radicalization has evolved from linear “staircase” models — which depicted radicalization as a sequential progression through defined stages — toward more complex process models that acknowledge the nonlinear, idiosyncratic, and often reversible character of radicalization trajectories. Moghaddam’s (2005) “staircase to terrorism” proposed a six-floor metaphorical progression from perceived deprivation through moral disengagement to violence. McCauley and Moskalenko’s (2008) “two pyramids” model distinguished between radicalization of opinion (adopting extreme beliefs) and radicalization of action (engaging in extreme behavior), recognizing that the two processes are related but distinct and that many individuals with extreme opinions never engage in extreme action.

More recent models have incorporated the digital dimension explicitly. Neumann’s (2013) framework distinguished between “cognitive radicalization” (adopting extremist beliefs) and “behavioral radicalization” (engaging in extremist action), with the internet playing different roles in each: online environments are particularly effective at cognitive radicalization through exposure to ideological content and community reinforcement, while the translation from cognitive to behavioral radicalization typically involves offline factors including personal grievance, social network influence, and triggering events. Borum (2011) proposed a more individualized model emphasizing that radicalization pathways are heterogeneous — different individuals follow different routes to violence, with online exposure playing a greater or lesser role depending on the individual’s psychological profile, social circumstances, and the specific ideological community involved.

The empirical evidence supports the heterogeneity emphasized by process models. Gill et al. (2017) analyzed the behaviors of 223 convicted terrorists in the United Kingdom and found that while 60 percent had interacted with online extremist content prior to their offense, the nature and intensity of online engagement varied substantially. Some offenders were deeply embedded in online extremist communities, while others had only peripheral contact with extremist content. The finding that online engagement was common but variable in its role underscores the difficulty of identifying a singular “online radicalization” process and the importance of attending to the interaction between online and offline factors.

Social Identity and Group Dynamics

Social identity theory and its applications to intergroup conflict provide a productive framework for understanding how online environments facilitate radicalization. Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) social identity theory proposes that individuals derive self-esteem and social meaning from their membership in social groups, and that the desire to maintain positive group identity drives intergroup competition and, under certain conditions, intergroup hostility. Online extremist communities function as identity-providing groups that offer belonging, purpose, and status to individuals who may feel marginalized, excluded, or purposeless in their offline lives (Khalil, 2014). The in-group solidarity and out-group hostility that characterize extremist online communities are intensified by the communicative affordances of digital platforms — the ability to construct and maintain insular communities where extreme views are normalized and moderate voices are excluded or silenced (Sunstein, 2017).

The concept of “echo chambers” — online environments in which individuals are exposed primarily to information and opinions that reinforce their existing beliefs — has been applied to radicalization processes, though the empirical evidence for the echo chamber effect is more nuanced than popular discourse suggests. Barberá (2015) found that social media exposure to cross-cutting political content was more common than echo chamber models predicted, while Bail, Argyle, Brown, Bumpus, Chen, Hunzaker, Lee, Mann, Merhout, and Volfovsky (2018) found that exposure to opposing views on Twitter did not reduce polarization and in some cases increased it. The implication for radicalization research is that mere exposure to counter-narratives may not interrupt radicalization and may in some cases reinforce extremist identity by activating defensive reactions against perceived ideological threats.

The role of charismatic online leaders and influential content creators in radicalization processes has been documented across ideological movements. Jihadist recruiters such as Anwar al-Awlaki, whose English-language lectures and writings influenced numerous Western-based terrorists including the Fort Hood shooter and the Boston Marathon bombers, demonstrate how a single influential figure can shape radicalization trajectories across geographic boundaries through online content (Shane, 2015). In the far-right space, influential figures on platforms including YouTube, Telegram, and Gab have served comparable roles, creating ideological content that is consumed by large audiences and that functions as a gateway to more extreme communities and ideas (Lewis, 2018).

The Ideological Landscape of Online Extremism

Jihadist Extremism Online

Jihadist organizations have been among the most sophisticated users of digital technology for radicalization and recruitment, with the Islamic State’s media operation representing the historical high-water mark of terrorist online capability. At its peak, the Islamic State maintained a multi-platform media ecosystem encompassing official media outlets (Al-Hayat Media Center, Amaq News Agency), supporter-operated channels on Twitter, Facebook, and Telegram, and a network of regional media offices producing content in dozens of languages (Zelin, 2015; Milton, 2016). The production quality of Islamic State propaganda — including the notorious execution videos, the English-language Dabiq and Rumiyah magazines, and recruitment videos targeting Western audiences — exceeded that of any previous terrorist organization and demonstrated an understanding of digital media strategy that rivaled commercial marketing operations.

The degradation of the Islamic State’s territorial caliphate from 2016 onward was accompanied by a decline in media output and online presence, driven by both military losses and aggressive content removal by platform companies. Twitter’s suspension of over 1.2 million accounts related to the promotion of terrorism between 2015 and 2018, combined with similar actions by Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms, substantially reduced the Islamic State’s presence on mainstream social media (Berger, 2018). However, the organization and its supporters migrated to less-moderated platforms — particularly Telegram, which became the primary distribution hub for jihadist content, and decentralized platforms including RocketChat and Hoop Messenger (Conway, Khawaja, Lakhani, Reffin, Robertson, & Saltman, 2019).

Al-Qaeda and its affiliates have maintained a more persistent if lower-profile online presence, emphasizing long-form ideological content over the Islamic State’s visually oriented media strategy. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s Inspire magazine, which published detailed instructions for carrying out attacks in the West alongside ideological justification for violence, influenced multiple attack plots and illustrated the continued relevance of older-generation jihadist online media alongside the Islamic State’s innovation (Lemieux, Brachman, Levitt, & Wood, 2014).

Domestic Violent Extremism and the Far Right

Domestic violent extremism in the United States encompasses a range of ideological movements — white supremacist, neo-Nazi, accelerationist, anti-government militia, sovereign citizen, and involuntary celibate (“incel”) — that have adopted online platforms as their primary environments for community formation, ideological development, and operational inspiration. The far-right online ecosystem differs structurally from jihadist networks: while jihadist radicalization often involves organized recruitment by identifiable groups, far-right radicalization frequently occurs through decentralized exposure to ideological content across multiple platforms without the involvement of formal organizational structures (Byman, 2019).

Imageboards such as 4chan and 8kun, forums including Stormfront and Iron March, encrypted messaging platforms including Telegram and Signal, and video platforms including BitChute and Rumble form the infrastructure of far-right online extremism. The “chan” culture’s emphasis on anonymity, transgressive humor, and meme-based communication creates an environment in which extreme ideas are introduced through irony and gradually normalized through repetition and escalation — a dynamic that Munn (2019) described as the “alt-right pipeline,” in which exposure to edgy humor and provocation on mainstream platforms serves as a gateway to increasingly explicit extremist content on dedicated platforms.

The accelerationist current within far-right extremism — which advocates for the deliberate provocation of societal collapse through mass violence as a precondition for the establishment of a white ethnostate — has been particularly associated with online radicalization. The manifestos published by the Christchurch (2019), El Paso (2019), and Buffalo (2022) attackers explicitly referenced online extremist communities, previous attackers whose manifestos they had read, and the meme culture of accelerationist forums. The phenomenon of “gamification” — in which mass violence is framed as a competitive activity with scorekeeping, leaderboards, and audience expectations — represents a distinctively online dynamic in which the social rewards of digital community amplify the motivation for violence (Macklin, 2019).

Involuntary Celibate and Misogynist Extremism

The “incel” (involuntary celibate) movement represents a form of online extremism that has produced lethal violence and that illustrates how online communities can generate ideological frameworks that motivate criminal action. Incel ideology attributes men’s perceived romantic and sexual failures to women’s supposed hypergamous mate selection behavior and to the broader social structures that enable women’s choice, producing a grievance framework that targets women and sexually successful men as enemies (Hoffman, Ware, & Shapiro, 2020). The 2014 Isla Vista attack by Elliot Rodger, who published a manifesto articulating incel ideology, and the 2018 Toronto van attack by Alek Minassian, who referenced Rodger and the incel community in his pre-attack communications, established incel violence as a recognized threat category.

The online infrastructure of incel extremism — forums including incels.is and related communities on Reddit (before their removal) and other platforms — provides the social environment in which grievance is articulated, validated, and intensified through peer interaction. The communities develop distinctive terminology (“blackpill,” “Stacy,” “Chad,” “LDAR”), maintain elaborate ideological frameworks, and celebrate previous attackers as “heroes” or “saints” — social dynamics that reinforce extremist identity and may lower the psychological barriers to violence for individuals already experiencing distress and anger (Baele, Brace, & Coan, 2021). The classification of incel violence — whether as terrorism, hate crime, or interpersonal violence — remains debated, with consequences for how law enforcement and intelligence agencies prioritize and investigate the threat.

Platform Dynamics and Amplification

Algorithmic Recommendation and Radicalization

The role of algorithmic recommendation systems in facilitating radicalization has been a subject of intense research and debate. The “rabbit hole” hypothesis proposes that platform recommendation algorithms — designed to maximize engagement by presenting users with content similar to what they have previously consumed — systematically direct users toward increasingly extreme content, creating a radicalization pathway that operates through the platform’s own recommendation logic rather than through deliberate extremist recruitment. Ribeiro, Ottoni, West, Almeida, and Meira (2020) found evidence of migration patterns from milder to more extreme content channels on YouTube, though whether algorithmic recommendations drove this migration or merely reflected user preferences remains contested.

YouTube has been a particular focus of radicalization research due to its combination of massive reach, video format (which is effective for ideological content), and recommendation algorithm. Lewis (2018) documented an “alternative influence network” on YouTube in which mainstream political commentators served as gateways to more extreme creators through reciprocal recommendation and cross-promotion. Subsequent changes to YouTube’s recommendation algorithm — implemented in response to research findings and public pressure — have reportedly reduced recommendations of borderline extremist content, though the platform’s own assessments of these changes have been challenged by independent researchers (Ledwich & Zaitsev, 2020).

The migration of extremist activity to less-moderated platforms following content removal from mainstream services — a phenomenon termed “deplatforming” — has produced mixed results for radicalization dynamics. Rogers (2020) found that deplatforming from mainstream platforms reduced the reach and visibility of extremist content but concentrated remaining activity on alternative platforms where content moderation was minimal or absent. The result may be a reduction in casual exposure to extremist content alongside an intensification of the extremist communities that form on alternative platforms — a trade-off whose net effect on radicalization rates has not been definitively established.

Encrypted Communications and Operational Security

Encrypted messaging platforms — particularly Telegram, Signal, and various smaller encrypted services — have become the primary communication infrastructure for organized extremist activity, providing channels for ideological discussion, operational planning, and the distribution of content that would be removed from mainstream platforms. Telegram’s combination of encrypted group messaging, broadcast channels (which enable one-to-many distribution to unlimited subscribers), and relatively permissive content moderation policies has made it the platform of choice for both jihadist and far-right extremist communication (Clifford & Powell, 2019).

The operational security practices of online extremists have grown increasingly sophisticated, incorporating VPN use, encrypted communications, anonymous account creation, and counter-surveillance techniques drawn from both cybersecurity and intelligence tradecraft. These practices complicate law enforcement investigation and intelligence collection, creating the same “going dark” challenges that encryption poses for cybercrime investigation more broadly. The tension between the legitimate privacy functions of encrypted communication and its exploitation by extremist actors parallels the broader encryption debate and resists simple resolution.

Counter-Radicalization and Prevention

Online Counter-Narratives and Alternative Messaging

Counter-narrative programs — which produce and distribute content designed to challenge extremist ideologies, provide alternative framings, and redirect individuals who may be on radicalization pathways — represent the primary online prevention approach. Government-funded counter-narrative initiatives include the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (focused on foreign propaganda and disinformation), DHS-funded Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention (TVTP) grant programs, and international efforts including the EU’s Radicalisation Awareness Network (Briggs & Feve, 2013). Private sector counter-narrative efforts, including the “Redirect Method” developed by Jigsaw (a subsidiary of Alphabet/Google), use targeted advertising to present counter-narrative content to individuals who search for extremist material.

The evidence for the effectiveness of counter-narrative programs is limited and mixed. Systematic reviews by Carthy, Doody, Cox, O’Hora, and Connolly (2020) and by the RAND Corporation have found that while counter-narrative campaigns can reach target audiences and generate engagement, their impact on attitudes and behavior has not been convincingly demonstrated. The methodological challenges of evaluating counter-narrative programs — the difficulty of measuring changes in radicalization trajectory, the absence of control groups, and the long time horizons over which attitude change occurs — make definitive effectiveness assessment difficult. Critics argue that counter-narratives may be ineffective because they address ideological content while ignoring the social, psychological, and material factors that drive radicalization — an argument that connects to broader debates about whether radicalization is primarily an ideological or a psychosocial process.

Content Moderation and Platform Responsibility

Platform content moderation represents the most scalable intervention against online radicalization, as the removal of extremist content from major platforms directly reduces its visibility and reach. Major platforms employ a combination of hash-matching databases (which identify previously flagged extremist content), AI-based content classifiers (which detect new extremist material based on learned patterns), and human reviewers (who adjudicate content flagged by automated systems or user reports). The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), established in 2017 by Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube, maintains a shared hash-sharing database that enables participating platforms to identify and remove content across the industry.

The effectiveness of content moderation at reducing radicalization is supported by evidence that deplatforming reduces the reach of extremist content. Berger (2018) documented the decline in Islamic State social media reach following aggressive content removal by Twitter, and research on far-right deplatforming has found comparable reductions in content distribution and audience size following removal from mainstream platforms. However, content moderation faces persistent challenges: the volume of content generated on major platforms exceeds the capacity of even well-resourced moderation systems, automated classifiers produce false positives that may suppress legitimate speech, and the definitional boundary between extremist content and protected political speech is often unclear — particularly for far-right content that uses coded language and ironic framing to convey extremist messages while maintaining plausible deniability (Ganesh & Bright, 2020).

Law Enforcement and Intelligence Response

Threat Assessment and Investigation

The investigation of online radicalization-related threats combines traditional counterterrorism techniques with digital investigation capabilities. The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) investigate individuals who may be progressing from online radicalization toward operational planning, drawing on social media monitoring, undercover operations, confidential human sources, and electronic surveillance to assess threat levels and build criminal cases. The FBI’s “disruption” model prioritizes the prevention of attacks through early intervention — which may involve arrest for material support or weapons offenses, engagement through community intervention programs, or surveillance and monitoring of individuals assessed as not yet constituting an imminent threat.

Behavioral threat assessment frameworks — which evaluate indicators of radicalization, mobilization to violence, and operational planning — have been adapted for the online context. The FBI’s “Homegrown Violent Extremist Mobilization Indicators” document identifies behavioral markers that may signal progression toward violence, including online indicators such as the consumption and production of extremist content, expressions of intent to commit violence, and engagement with operational planning material. However, the challenge of distinguishing between individuals who express extreme views online (which is constitutionally protected) and those who are preparing to act on those views (which constitutes criminal activity) creates a persistent tension between surveillance and speech protection that First Amendment doctrine has not fully resolved (Bjelopera, 2013).

Legal Framework and First Amendment Constraints

The legal framework for addressing online radicalization in the United States is shaped by the First Amendment’s protection of political speech, which encompasses extremist expression that stops short of incitement to imminent lawless action. Under the Supreme Court’s standard in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), even advocacy of violence is constitutionally protected unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” This standard creates substantial space for extremist speech that may contribute to radicalization but that does not constitute a direct and imminent call to specific criminal action.

The federal material support statutes (18 U.S.C. § 2339A and § 2339B) provide the primary criminal law tools for prosecuting individuals who provide support to designated foreign terrorist organizations, including online activities such as producing propaganda, recruiting members, or providing technical assistance. The Supreme Court upheld the material support statute against First Amendment challenge in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), ruling that Congress could criminalize speech and associational activity conducted “under the direction of, or in coordination with” a foreign terrorist organization. However, the material support framework does not apply to domestic violent extremist organizations, which are not subject to the foreign terrorist organization designation process, creating an asymmetry in which online support for jihadist organizations is more readily prosecutable than comparable support for domestic far-right groups (Waxman, 2021).

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides platforms with broad immunity from civil liability for user-generated extremist content, a protection that has been challenged in litigation brought by victims of terrorism and their families. The Supreme Court declined to substantially narrow Section 230 in Gonzalez v. Google LLC (2023), leaving the immunity framework largely intact but not resolving the underlying question of platform responsibility for algorithmic amplification of extremist content. Legislative proposals to condition Section 230 immunity on reasonable content moderation practices, or to create exceptions for content that contributes to terrorism, have been introduced but not enacted, reflecting the difficulty of crafting legislative solutions that address extremist exploitation without chilling protected speech.

Emerging Challenges

AI-Generated Extremist Content

The emergence of generative artificial intelligence presents new challenges for online radicalization prevention. AI tools can generate extremist propaganda, create deepfake videos of purported terrorist communications, personalize radicalization content for specific target audiences, and produce translation of extremist material into languages that organizations may not otherwise reach. The automation of content production threatens to overwhelm content moderation systems that depend on the identification of previously known material or the detection of patterns in human-authored text — AI-generated content may evade both hash-matching and linguistic pattern recognition.

The defensive application of AI to counter-radicalization is developing alongside its offensive applications. AI-based tools for detecting radicalization indicators in online behavior, for identifying emerging extremist narratives, and for generating targeted counter-narrative content represent potential countermeasures, though their effectiveness has not been established through rigorous evaluation. The arms race dynamic between AI-enabled radicalization and AI-enabled prevention parallels the broader contest between offensive and defensive AI applications in cybersecurity, with the relative pace of development on each side determining the net impact on radicalization outcomes.

Cross-Ideological Convergence

The convergence of ideological themes across traditionally separate extremist movements — the adoption of accelerationist violence by both far-right and eco-extremist actors, the blending of conspiracy theories with political extremism, and the emergence of “salad bar” radicalization in which individuals adopt elements from multiple extremist ideologies — complicates threat assessment and prevention. Online environments facilitate cross-ideological exposure by presenting content from multiple extremist traditions in adjacent platform spaces, enabling individuals to construct personalized ideological frameworks that draw on diverse extremist sources (Amarasingam & Argentino, 2020).

The QAnon phenomenon illustrated how conspiracy theories originating in anonymous online forums could generate a mass following with real-world consequences, including the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. QAnon’s online infrastructure — spanning social media platforms, video sharing sites, podcasts, and dedicated forums — demonstrated the capacity of online communities to create and sustain belief systems with no offline organizational structure, challenging radicalization models that presuppose identifiable extremist organizations as the agents of recruitment and indoctrination.

Conclusion

Online radicalization and extremism represent a dynamic and evolving threat at the intersection of digital technology, political violence, and criminal behavior. The internet has not created radicalization — the psychological, social, and political conditions that drive individuals toward extremism predate digital technology — but it has transformed the speed, scale, and accessibility of radicalization processes in ways that have produced measurable increases in extremist mobilization and violence. The response requires integration across multiple institutional domains: platform governance that reduces the availability of extremist content, law enforcement investigation that identifies and disrupts threats before they materialize, counter-narrative and prevention programs that address the demand side of radicalization, and legal frameworks that balance security imperatives against the constitutional protections for political speech that distinguish democratic from authoritarian approaches to extremism.

The most significant challenge for the coming decade is the adaptation of prevention and response capabilities to a threat landscape that is increasingly decentralized, cross-ideological, and AI-enhanced. The institutional frameworks developed to counter al-Qaeda and the Islamic State — focused on identifiable foreign terrorist organizations with hierarchical structures and official media operations — are poorly suited to the diffuse, anonymous, and algorithmically amplified dynamics of contemporary online radicalization. Developing frameworks adequate to this evolved threat is among the most urgent tasks facing the intersection of criminology, counterterrorism, and digital policy.

References

  1. Amarasingam, A., & Argentino, M.-A. (2020). The QAnon conspiracy theory: A security threat in the making? CTC Sentinel, 13(7), 37–44.
  2. Baele, S. J., Brace, L., & Coan, T. G. (2021). From “incel” to “saint”: Analyzing the violent worldview behind the 2018 Toronto attack. Terrorism and Political Violence, 33(8), 1667–1691. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2019.1638256
  3. Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
  4. Barberá, P. (2015). Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis, 23(1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpu011
  5. Baugut, P., & Neumann, K. (2020). Online propaganda use during Islamist radicalization. Information, Communication & Society, 23(11), 1570–1592. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1594333
  6. Berger, J. M. (2018). Extremism. MIT Press.
  7. Berger, J. M., & Morgan, J. (2015). The ISIS Twitter census: Defining and describing the population of ISIS supporters on Twitter. Brookings Institution.
  8. Bjelopera, J. P. (2013). The domestic terrorist threat: Background and issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service.
  9. Borum, R. (2011). Radicalization into violent extremism I: A review of social science theories. Journal of Strategic Security, 4(4), 7–36. https://doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.4.4.1
  10. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
  11. Briggs, R., & Feve, S. (2013). Review of programs to counter narratives of violent extremism. Institute for Strategic Dialogue.
  12. Byman, D. L. (2019). Spreading hate: The global rise of white supremacist terrorism. Oxford University Press.
  13. Carthy, S. L., Doody, C. B., Cox, K., O’Hora, D., & Connolly, D. (2020). Counter-narratives for the prevention of violent radicalization: A systematic review of targeted interventions. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(3), e1106. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1106
  14. Clifford, B., & Powell, H. (2019). Encrypted extremism: Inside the English-speaking Islamic State ecosystem on Telegram. Program on Extremism, George Washington University.
  15. Conway, M., Khawaja, M., Lakhani, S., Reffin, J., Robertson, A., & Saltman, E. (2019). Disrupting Daesh: Measuring takedown of online terrorist material and its impacts. VOX-Pol.
  16. Ganesh, B., & Bright, J. (2020). Countering extremists on social media: Challenges for strategic communication and content moderation. Policy & Internet, 12(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.236
  17. Gill, P., Corner, E., Conway, M., Thornton, A., Bloom, M., & Horgan, J. (2017). Terrorist use of the Internet by the numbers. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12249
  18. Hoffman, B., Ware, J., & Shapiro, E. (2020). Assessing the threat of incel violence. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 43(7), 565–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2020.1751459
  19. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010).
  20. Horgan, J. (2008). From profiles to pathways and roots to routes: Perspectives from psychology on radicalization into terrorism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 618(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716208317539
  21. Khalil, J. (2014). Radical beliefs and violent actions are not synonymous: How to place the key disjuncture between attitudes and behaviors at the heart of our research into political violence. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 37(2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2014.862902
  22. Koehler, D. (2019). Right-wing terrorism in the 21st century: The National Socialist Underground and the history of terror from the far-right in Germany. Routledge.
  23. Ledwich, M., & Zaitsev, A. (2020). Algorithmic extremism: Examining YouTube’s rabbit hole of radicalization. First Monday, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v25i3.10419
  24. Lemieux, A. F., Brachman, J. M., Levitt, J., & Wood, J. (2014). Inspire magazine: A critical analysis of its significance and potential impact through the lens of the information, motivation, and behavioral skills model. Terrorism and Political Violence, 26(2), 354–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2013.828604
  25. Lewis, R. (2018). Alternative influence: Broadcasting the reactionary right on YouTube. Data & Society Research Institute.
  26. Macklin, G. (2019). The Christchurch attacks: Livestream terror in the viral video age. CTC Sentinel, 12(6), 18–29.
  27. McCauley, C., & Moskalenko, S. (2008). Mechanisms of political radicalization: Pathways toward terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 20(3), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546550802073367
  28. McCauley, C., & Moskalenko, S. (2011). Friction: How radicalization happens to them and us. Oxford University Press.
  29. Moghaddam, F. M. (2005). The staircase to terrorism: A psychological exploration. American Psychologist, 60(2), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.2.161
  30. Munn, L. (2019). Alt-right pipeline: Individual journeys to extremism online. First Monday, 24(6). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i6.10108
  31. Neumann, P. R. (2013). The trouble with radicalization. International Affairs, 89(4), 873–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12049
  32. Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (2024). Annual threat assessment of the U.S. intelligence community. https://www.odni.gov/
  33. Ribeiro, M. H., Ottoni, R., West, R., Almeida, V. A. F., & Meira, W. (2020). Auditing radicalization pathways on YouTube. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 131–141). https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372879
  34. Rogers, R. (2020). Deplatforming: Following extreme Internet celebrities to Telegram and alternative social media. European Journal of Communication, 35(3), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323120922066
  35. Sageman, M. (2008). Leaderless jihad: Terror networks in the twenty-first century. University of Pennsylvania Press.
  36. Shane, S. (2015). Objective Troy: A terrorist, a president, and the rise of the drone. Tim Duggan Books.
  37. Singer, P. W., & Brooking, E. T. (2018). LikeWar: The weaponization of social media. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
  38. Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
  39. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
  40. Waxman, M. C. (2021). Regulating domestic terrorism: Rethinking the tools of counterterrorism and constitutional constraints. Lawfare.
  41. Weimann, G. (2006). Terror on the Internet: The new arena, the new challenges. United States Institute of Peace Press.
  42. Winter, C. (2015). The virtual ‘caliphate’: Understanding Islamic State’s propaganda strategy. Quilliam Foundation.
  43. Zelin, A. Y. (2015). Picture or it didn’t happen: A snapshot of the Islamic State’s official media output. Perspectives on Terrorism, 9(4), 85–97.

Related Articles