How to win online war against jihadists

Last week’s terrorist attack at Parsons Green station i n London i s just the latest reminder that our society and our very way of life are under constant threat. In each jihadist attack on Britain this year, it seems online radicalisation played some part in driving the perpetrators to violence, whether in providing the instructions for last week’s bomb or in spreading the hateful ideology behind these attacks. As a society, we are struggling to grasp the extent of the challenge and also appropriate ways of responding.

At present, we are certainly not winning the war online. As General David Petraeus says in his Foreword to Policy Exchange’s new report: “Jihadists have shown particular facility in exploiting ungoverned or even inadequately governed spaces in the Islamic world. And now they are also exploiting the vast, largely ungoverned spaces in cyberspace, demonstrating increasing technical expertise, sophistication in media production, and agility in the face of various efforts to limit its access.” Although ISIS are losing physical territory, they have maintained a consistent virtual output and presence throughout the last three years. In an average week, Islamist jihadists produce around 100 pieces of new content (and often much more than that). This covers everything from videos to images to essays, disseminated by means of a Swarmcast—an interconnected network that constantly reconfigures itself, much like a swarm of bees or flock of birds in mid-flight and is extremely resilient to disruption.

Our research shows that jihadists use different social media platforms in different ways. They communicate with each other via Telegram, which plays host to a rich array of textual and audio-visual extremist content. But for outreach activity aimed at a broader audience, they exploit the mainstream internet companies we all know—platforms like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Twitter alone accounts for 40% of the identifiable traffic to jihadist content online. Tens of thousands of users access this content from all over the globe—the UK is the fifth most frequent location from which the content was accessed (after Turkey, the US, Saudi Arabia and Iraq) —and the most frequent location in Europe.

Many of these companies are clearly not blind to this problem. They have assured governments and their users that they take this threat seriously, but so far these words have not led to actions that have proven decisive. The ability of jihadists to promote their message online in the mainstream public space is undiminished.

Unsurprisingly, our polling shows a crisis of confidence amongst the general public on this issue. Three quarters of British people feel that the big internet companies should be more proactive in locating and deleting extremist content and two thirds of people think that they are not doing enough at the moment to combat online radicalisation. These companies are famed for their innovation and intelligence, but they are not doing enough to apply those qualities to the battle against extremism.

It is clear that the status quo is not working. It is time for a new approach. The British Prime Minister and Home Secretary have, to their credit, led the way internationally, calling out the companies and demanding that more be done, including at the United Nations in New York this week. We have proposed a graduated six-step plan of measures by which the British government could put pressure on the leading tech companies to improve their performance, all of which have significant public support:

1. Ask the companies to revise and implement more stringent codes of conduct or terms of service that explicitly reject extremism.

2. Require the companies to work with and fund the efforts of an expanded Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit.

3. Empower the forthcoming Commission for Countering Extremism to oversee content removal online.

4. Establish a new independent regulator of social media content, within the purview of Ofcom.

5. Put in place a system of financial penalties, administered by the independent regulator, to force company compliance.

6. Consider ways in which the existing legislation against the distribution of extremist material can be used to prosecute repeat offenders from the tech companies.

Of course, one hopes that it doesn’t come to this. The best solution for everyone is for the internet companies to take the lead on this issue. Yet it may be the case that governments have to help these corporations to help themselves by showing tough love.

As our report recognises, dealing with a problem of this magnitude requires action across society. At the other end of the supply chain, we recommend that the government find new ways to reduce “demand”—by also targeting those who wish to consume extremist material. At present, the legal framework for dealing with this issue is fragmented. There is also no prohibition on the consumption or possession per se of extremist content. One option for dealing with this would be to develop civil remedies—perhaps by extending mechanisms such as the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs), or revisiting proposals for “Extremism Disruption Orders”. Alternatively, the government could consider new legislation that would criminalise the “aggravated possession and/or persistent consumption of material that promotes hatred and violence in the service of a political ideology”. Such powers would need to be framed carefully to avoid any undue infringement of civil liberties, but the scale of the challenge requires innovative thinking and a bold new approach— and our survey suggests there is a public mandate to do more: two thirds of British people believe that the internet should be a regulated space in which extremist material is controlled.

Getting the balance right between liberty and security online is not easy and it requires us to confront difficult questions about the role of the State in relation to the internet and the moral and social norms that are appropriate to the digital age. But this issue is vital to UK national security and there is a danger that the blood and treasure we are investing in defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria will produce little more than a pyrrhic victory, unless we act to defeat the virtual threat. Dr Martyn Frampton is Co-Head of Security and Extremism at Policy Exchange and the lead author of The New Netwar: Countering Extremism Online. The Gujarat Assembly elections slated later this year perhaps would be more important than the 2019 Parliamentary polls. The state has been the bastion of the saffron brigade and over a span of time its critics have described it as the laboratory for the Hindutva brand of politics. Since 1995, the party has been a dominant force in this western state, known for its entrepreneurial prowess and understanding of economic issues pertaining to the running of businesses and industry. It is here that Prime Minister Narendra Modi acquired skills that made him the most successful politician in the country and thus helped him lead his party to an overwhelming victory in the high-voltage 2014 Lok Sabha contest, which led to the decimation of the Congress and the unprecedented rise of the BJP.

However, it will be after 15 years that the BJP is entering the electoral arena with Modi not as the Chief Minister. The Prime Minister had, through his persistent and aggressive campaign, clinched three victories for his party in 2002, 2007 and 2012 elections. Modi had become synonymous with Gujarat and even when he visited New York for the mega event at Madison Square Garden and later at Wembley in London, it was the Gujarati diaspora, which was at the forefront in welcoming him. He has never allowed the state to be out of his sight, though he obviously does not have the time to grant it his undivided attention, given that he is occupied with numerous other tasks as Prime Minister.

Therefore, the battle for Gandhinagar in November/December 2017 assumes profound political significance, since only an extraordinary victory would please Modi’s supporters, as they expect him to effortlessly romp home in the Assembly confrontation. The BJP’s rise in Gujarat was initially on account of the massive support it received from the dominant Patel community, which has usually stood behind parties opposed to the Congress, save the brief period when Chimanbhai Patel was the Chief Minister. Significantly, the Patels and other Patidars appear to be dissatisfied with the party and have provided ample indications that definitely must have set off alarm bells in the saffron camp.

Both Modi and BJP president Amit Shah realise the importance of the Patel support and therefore are making all possible attempts to pacify them. Recently, when former Chief Minister Keshubhai Patel’s son passed away, Modi made it a point to visit his house, despite a packed schedule with the visiting Japanese Prime Minister. Earlier Amit Shah and Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, who has once again been made in charge of the Gujarat elections, also met Keshubhai to offer their condolences. The Patels are miffed on account of being sidelined by the BJP. They are also disappointed that Vijay Rupani had replaced Anandiben Patel as the Chief Minister. There are other brewing issues as well, which the party is attempting to deal with. However, led by Hardik Patel, the younger generation of the community is exhibiting signs of palpable revolt.

Amit Shah has publicly been claiming that his party would win up to 150 seats in the Assembly elections, which even the party’s supporters find difficult to believe. As a part of strategy and with the aim of dividing the Kshatriya votes, which normally have gone to the Congress, the BJP apparently had nudged Shankarsinh Vaghela to move away on the eve of the crucial Rajya Sabha polls, where Sonia Gandhi’s political secretary Ahmed Patel managed to win despite the desperate effort to defeat him. The BJP’s position in the tribal belt, where it had scored convincing victories under Modi the last three times, is also not as comfortable as it once was. The party is banking on multi-cornered contests to ensure its win and if this does not happen, it could be in serious trouble.

The reason for Gujarat having become more important than ever before is due to the fact that it is the first full-fledged large state administered by the BJP, which is going to the polls since the 2014 grand victory. In every other state where the BJP triumphed, there existed a government of a different party. In Goa, the party did not receive a clear mandate on its own steam, forming the government via manipulation. In Punjab, where it was in power in alliance with the Akalis, it virtually was wiped out. Earlier in Delhi, where the BJP secured 32 seats in 2013, it was merely able to win three in the 2015 Assembly elections. The Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh and Rajasthan polls are slotted for next year and therefore it is Gujarat which would define the course of political events. Thus, the party has to defend its supremacy in this state.

Unfortunately, for the BJP the elections are timed when the economy is in the doldrums. For the business savvy Gujaratis, the basic aspects of economy are pivotal to the state of affairs. Political pundits had linked the unprecedented BJP win in Uttar Pradesh to “the success of demonetisation”. However, the real test lies in Gujarat, where the ramifications of the steps taken by the Central government to strengthen the economy would be examined through microscopic lens. Therefore the outcome in this state would have an impact on the elections that are to follow later.

If the BJP emerges victorious in Gujarat, its rivals will be left gasping for breath prior to final showdown in 2019. It is solely the Modi Magic that could sway the show. Between us.