> It is circumstantial evidence, but I wouldn't expect an increase in radical activity on social media to occur in a society in which most people are afraid to

> It is circumstantial evidence, but I wouldn't expect an increase in radical activity on social media to occur in a society in which most people are afraid to express their views due to fear of omnipresent surveillance. The consistent "haha only serious" taunt I hear on the left is directed towards "Twitter activists" – leftists whose only contribution is to tweet, and who aren't politically active outside of their social media bubble. I'd almost wonder if taking a hands-off approach to social media benefits the surveillance state: undirected radical energy flows into social media and away from organizations that could try to focus it towards change. Those organizations remain small, which means the people who are actually likely to radicalize are easier to watch. Social media as a "pressure relief valve", I guess. Someone may point out that sometimes that pressure relief valve gets stuck and we experience stochastic terrorism, which is very true. But I contend that benefits the state as well.