I think the online bombardment is about laying the groundwork. If every day you’re getting a torrent of fake news in your feed demonising immigrants and refugees to an exceptional degree and telling you that mainstream politicians and media are hiding these truths from you, it gradually warps your worldview until you’re pliable to join in when your mate from work starts ranting about Muslims and then another guy down the pub who just got out of prison says he’s going to a ‘protest’ about some incident involving an immigrant (fake news, but you don’t know that) that popped up on all your Twitter feeds and he says the media aren’t covering.
I’ve seen exactly the same happen with people I know in relation to Israel and Palestine - people who have always felt a reasonable and human sympathy for the Palestinians’ awful plight then joining community WhatsApp groups, following certain Twitter accounts, and so on until six months later they’re suddenly weirdly aware of which public figures or their partners are Jewish and you notice them using the word ‘Zionist’ in everyday speech (without, I suspect, actually knowing what one is) - all without them realising they’re getting slowly radicalised.
Yes, you could say it’s part of the priming process I suppose. I don’t think it’s core, though. Their power and presence pre-dates major social media, and does not require it. It’s bonus on top, not a necessary part of their overall strategy, and thus removing it would not do any significant damage to their effectiveness.
I would point to the time they were not present on twitter, and right wing positions like Brexit still flourishing as an example of this.
They’ll use whatever tool you give them, but it’s like a hydra. Cutting off a head does nothing if the body is still sitting there, and the body is not on major social media. Those are all heads.
edit: I would also draw a distinction between what I’d call hard and soft bigotry. One is the useful idiots that aren’t thinking about it very much. They’re frustrating, but can be brought back around if approached with a measure of care. Their bigotry is not heartfelt regardless of how much they may repeat the various lines. They’re more just participating in a social structure, and they’re capable of abandoning it as readily as they picked it up. The real problem is the hard bigots, those that know what they’re doing and concoct clever strategies to further their own ends.
Any time you see someone trying to couch some hidden bit of conspiracy theory into a more palatable package, you’re seeing a hard bigot in training, someone honing their skills as they knowingly walk in the footsteps of Goebbels. A hydra head, sharpening their teeth. They came from somewhere, though, and that somewhere is the real problem. They are fully capable of outmaneuvering moderation techniques, unfortunately. They are very, very accustomed to being banned from places, and it does not overly slow them down.
I think the online bombardment is about laying the groundwork. If every day you’re getting a torrent of fake news in your feed demonising immigrants and refugees to an exceptional degree and telling you that mainstream politicians and media are hiding these truths from you, it gradually warps your worldview until you’re pliable to join in when your mate from work starts ranting about Muslims and then another guy down the pub who just got out of prison says he’s going to a ‘protest’ about some incident involving an immigrant (fake news, but you don’t know that) that popped up on all your Twitter feeds and he says the media aren’t covering.
I’ve seen exactly the same happen with people I know in relation to Israel and Palestine - people who have always felt a reasonable and human sympathy for the Palestinians’ awful plight then joining community WhatsApp groups, following certain Twitter accounts, and so on until six months later they’re suddenly weirdly aware of which public figures or their partners are Jewish and you notice them using the word ‘Zionist’ in everyday speech (without, I suspect, actually knowing what one is) - all without them realising they’re getting slowly radicalised.
Yes, you could say it’s part of the priming process I suppose. I don’t think it’s core, though. Their power and presence pre-dates major social media, and does not require it. It’s bonus on top, not a necessary part of their overall strategy, and thus removing it would not do any significant damage to their effectiveness.
I would point to the time they were not present on twitter, and right wing positions like Brexit still flourishing as an example of this.
They’ll use whatever tool you give them, but it’s like a hydra. Cutting off a head does nothing if the body is still sitting there, and the body is not on major social media. Those are all heads.
edit: I would also draw a distinction between what I’d call hard and soft bigotry. One is the useful idiots that aren’t thinking about it very much. They’re frustrating, but can be brought back around if approached with a measure of care. Their bigotry is not heartfelt regardless of how much they may repeat the various lines. They’re more just participating in a social structure, and they’re capable of abandoning it as readily as they picked it up. The real problem is the hard bigots, those that know what they’re doing and concoct clever strategies to further their own ends.
Any time you see someone trying to couch some hidden bit of conspiracy theory into a more palatable package, you’re seeing a hard bigot in training, someone honing their skills as they knowingly walk in the footsteps of Goebbels. A hydra head, sharpening their teeth. They came from somewhere, though, and that somewhere is the real problem. They are fully capable of outmaneuvering moderation techniques, unfortunately. They are very, very accustomed to being banned from places, and it does not overly slow them down.