What exactly was wrong? Suspicions, misinformation, and extreme fanaticism have flourished as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. Increasingly individuals have already been spending time with family and online during the shutdown and with increased unemployment, exposing themselves to incorrect information and terrible extremist narratives. Websites like 4Chan or Reddit, as well as more major social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, are hotspots for propagating and distributing misinformation. What exactly is the issue?
In order to promote social resilience, it is critical, especially in the COVID-19 environment, to guarantee that today's digital generations are trained to spot hateful extremism and false narratives. To inform primary research, decision making and it is necessary to combine previous research, comprehend the evidence base, and rectify inadequacies.
During COVID-19, the Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE) commissioned Ipsos Mori and RAND Europe to conduct research on hateful extremism in society. RAND Europe undertook a study of the literature to look into the linkages between hateful extremism and misleading information, as well as the online interventions and policy responses that go along with it.
A Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) was employed by the study team, which includes an evaluation of 93 relevant publications from a variety of fields, including psychology, political science, sociology, and law.
Misinformation may influence hostile extreme attitudes and behaviors by creating safe spaces and increasing hate crimes.
Increased exposure and recruiting benefits incentivize hateful radicals to promote misinformation and conspiracy theories.
Hateful extremist actors usually focus their narratives on 'out-groups,' although the epidemic is framed differently in each story.
Although there is minimal empirical evidence on the effect of online interventions, the literature shows the fact-checking, counter-speech, takedowns, and education are successful.
A list of recommendations for such design and implementation of future interventions may be found in the evaluated literature:
Authorities should devote more resources to combating misleading information in an attempt to strengthen community resiliency, according to reports, as well as undertake or commission a further study on the effects of vile extremist narratives.
Firms like Facebook as well as media companies are also being pushed to take more responsibility by regulating content on various platforms including guaranteeing those media follow proper journalistic ethics (e.g. avoiding clickbait headlines).
Funding in research may contribute to closing out evidence gaps and strengthening the response to false information & destructive extremist ideologies.
Keeping digital companies accountable can make them more receptive to misleading information and ugly fanaticism.
Investing in education can help people become more aware of the hazards of false information and hateful extremism.
actually collecting and disseminating data on indications of hateful extremism might help policymakers improve their responses.
Collaboration across sectors might help to ensure that initiatives reinforce each other.
The research identifies areas that may benefit from more investigation and inquiry based on the evidentiary gaps identified.
Assessments of current therapies that are independent and well-designed.
The study of 'directed motives' (a person's proclivity to maintain current views).
Research has a greater geographic, linguistic, and internet content scope.
No comments:
Post a Comment