This makes an important point that a lot of internet researchers (like yours truly!) have tried to make about online discourse: far from trapping us in homogenous bubbles, social media actually exposes us to *lots* of competing, challenging ideas.
This is important to understand because we're apt to blame a lack of information, or a lack of exposure to facts, for the existence of this or that extremist group. Fear of "filter bubbles" runs rampant.
But the far-right, neo-Nazis, QAnon, etc. are not the result of a *lack* of access to facts; they result from the *recontextualising* of facts into a different system of meaning.
So, what does that jumble mean? Basically that you can encounter a fact and discard it without ever being challenged by it. To some degree, we *all* do this. Extremists just, generally, have to do it far more.
So, a news article debunking the lie du jour becomes "fake news," et cetera. This is vital to comprehend because there remains an enduring liberal fantasy about education and fact checking as solutions to the neverending problem of white-right identity extremism in the US.
Which pairs with the lie that all Trump supporters *must* be uneducated, etc. Many of the January 6th insurrectionists went to university, however. They're not uneducated, they're telling themselves a specific story that makes their world make sense.
A lot of the right wing alternatives to Twitter are dangerous. Parler's death is long overdue. But they were never *that* successful because the far right loves exposing itself to the left (in every sense of that phrase).
They spin their wheels on Gab et al. because there are no libs to own there. They want to harass people, they want to spread lies on the comments of news stories that otherwise challenge their narratives, they want to spew slurs at the groups they hate.
The issue is not exposure to alternate beliefs. It's their conviction in their own, which is impervious to all reason. Their only way out of this maze is to tell themselves a new story.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Katherine Cross

Katherine Cross Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Quinnae_Moon

12 Jan
Hi, scholar of online abuse here.

No. I cannot overstate how dangerous and inadequate this is. For years, I've watched people proudly post harassment and abuse under their legal names, with photographs attached. Facebook is a cesspit despite its anti-anonymity policies.
Deindividuation is but one of *many* contributing factors to online abuse and extremist organisation. The fact that these people don't think they're doing anything wrong is a much bigger problem, as is the fact that it's easy to lose sight of your targets' humanity online.
More than deindividuation, *dissociation* is the greater threat: separation from the consequences of your words and deeds online, the cutting off of any empathy for your targets, et cetera. Killing anonymity addresses exactly *none* of this.
Read 6 tweets
9 Jan
So, just some additional info sci research notes here. For years I've been asked by people who work at tech companies how to improve platform moderation. When I use the word "context" many people threw their hands up and said "but who decides!?"

Now Twitter just... did it.
And that's good! But it also shows you how, frankly, easy this all was. "Who decides?" is not a worthless question but it's often deployed in a worthlessly self-paralysing way, as an excuse to avoid hard decisions or challenging conversations.
Context matters because not every abusive or threatening piece of material online contains easily-searched slurs or swear words or immediate threats. Interpretation matters; symbolism matters; in-group signification matters; slang and codewords matter.
Read 7 tweets
8 Jan
I've studied online harassment for years and Trump's Twitter account was the Sauron's Eye of online abuse, an unending fountain of incitement that could have literally pushed us to the brink of war.
I wrote in an academic paper, way back in 2012, that the notion of online speech being unreal, that it's "just words" or "just the internet" was causing a lot of harm and that things would get worse. Trump became the Ur textual example of how bad it could be.
Read 7 tweets
7 Jan
This is why I've been all but screaming at people (mostly on the left, frankly) for years that these people are not the "forgotten men" of the rural working class or whatever. They're middle/upper class, trying to gain even more power.
The common denominator is not being part of a forgotten working class, it is largely a politics of whiteness that adopts a specific lifestyle as an in-group solidarity marker. It may, at times, pantomime a fun-house mirror view of working class life, but it's not proletarian.
It's as authentic as Kelly Loeffler's faux-trucker aesthetic or Don Jr.'s faux-rancher pantomime for Twitter, and deployed for the same reason: pretending to salt-of-the-earth authenticity while being privileged as all fuck.
Read 4 tweets
6 Jan
You're already hearing this a lot, I imagine, but those of us who have warned for years that what's said and done online is consequential, that people like this were not 'just trolling,' have known something like this was inevitable if nothing was done.
And I will add: this did not in any way start with GamerGate, as some are claiming. GG was an inflection point, a moment when the far-right online invaded a mainstream hobby for recruitment. But it should be blatantly obvious that today's events didn't *begin* there.
The alt-right predates GG, despite what you may commonly hear. And, as for the long arc of American history, there are deeply alarming analogues. It's all part of a long history of white supremacism in this country. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmingto…
Read 8 tweets
6 Jan
The Republican Party has proven its spinelessness many times over, but after tonight's election it looks even more pathetic. Trump was an actively *destructive influence* on the GOP's chances. Trump's fans/cult will never support them. Time to cut bait.
There will be many stories to come from this election. Black community organising, groups like Voto Latino causing a big bump in Latino votes for the Dems, Trump depressing GOP turnout, they're all factors.
But for Republicans who privately scorn Trump, the argument for their ongoing, grovelling support, was that he won them votes. He turns out his fanbase for them.

Except, clearly, he didn't. He weakened the GOP against a *strong* Dem challenge.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!