4 ms·
The question here is how propaganda works. If you compare it to advertising, it would seem that widespread and indiscriminate dissemination works wonders. That
by rocqua 9y ago
The question here is how propaganda works. If you compare it to advertising, it would seem that widespread and indiscriminate dissemination works wonders.
That is not to say you should deny jihadism exists, but letting the most vocal jihadis be the ones to tell the story doesn't seem wise.
The best argument I see against this is essentially the martyrdom of oppression. It doesn't help when they can claim "See, they are afraid of us so they must censor us".
Consider the 'fair and balanced' approach to global warming. Giving the obviously wrong a platform doesn't seem to have worked.
- infodroid 9y agoThe root of the problem as I have mentioned previously is that the propaganda is actually effective. And until you identify the reasons why this is the case, and directly start addressing those reasons, whatever actions you take aren't going to make much of a difference. Banning propaganda from "vocal jihadis" won't make their words any less appealing. And no matter how good your technical controls, it won't prevent a motivated person from finding such material online, one way or another. And while there are many reasons why the jihadi message is so effective, I happen to believe that it is sustained not because the ideas are being widely and indiscriminately dissiminated, but rather because the ideas are not being exposed and challenged. It is bizarre that there are people committing mass murder, motivated by a concrete and well-documented set of beliefs, which nobody is criticizing let alone even willing to discuss in public. Doesn't that sound to you like "they are afraid of us"? I'm sure that's how it looks like to a jihadi recruit.