22.08.2024

Combat the far right online

Social media and encrypted messaging are being used by the far right to shape politics. How should the left respond? Carl Collins thinks we should consider throwing away our leaflets and take to our keyboards

Following the July 29 stabbings in Southport, when three children were murdered, every person remotely capable of rational thought and in possession of even the slightest dose of humanity would have felt their stomach sink and their hearts break. Shock, disbelief, anguish, confusion, anger would have been the instinctive feelings experienced from such traumatic news.

To a tiny group of people, however, if any of such feelings were to be felt at all, they were to be quickly pushed aside in favour of an overwhelming sense of opportunity. Far-right groups, networks, individuals and ‘bots’ (semi or fully autonomous software that communicates through social media using artificial intelligence or algorithms) immediately began circulating half-truths, conspiracy theories and outright lies about the attack and the alleged attacker.

It was initially claimed by Channel3Now - an American website which shares viral ‘fake news’ stories on social media - that the attacks were carried out by someone who had arrived ‘illegally by boat’, that he was on an ‘MI6 watchlist’ and that he was ‘known’ to mental health services. This calculated rumour, or variations of it, along with other lies, were systematically spread both autonomously and by prominent individuals across social media. As would be expected, vermin such as convicted fraudster Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (more commonly known as Tommy Robinson) and Andrew Tate, a misogynist and so-called social media ‘influencer’ who is currently in Romania facing criminal and civil charges of sexual assault and human trafficking, were quick to promote the lies. Nigel Farage, now an MP, took to social media to arrogantly ‘ask questions’ of the police, citing Tate’s claims as his source of concern!

Algorithms

As ‘celebrities’ and ‘public figures’ with large followings began to consciously or unconsciously share this content, the subsequent viewing and sharing by ‘ordinary’ accounts produced a self-amplifying spike in activity, aided by the algorithms which disseminate popular or coordinated content through social media. This means even people who do not follow such far-right groups, networks or individuals would have almost certainly seen some of this content in their feeds - despite the information being partially or sometimes entirely false. As the saying goes, a lie will be halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on.

Nevertheless, politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and the right wing, having developed its internet engagement over several years, was ready and able to take the opportunity. This played a significant part in the subsequent riots which broke out across Britain. For those looking for justification for their racism, this was it, and the calls to take to the streets were answered. Other people, frustrated at any number of things - the cost-of-living crisis, housing shortage, strains on local infrastructure, etc - were able to read what they wanted into the slogan, ‘Enough is enough’, and joined in (however, when Farage et al say ‘these people have legitimate concerns’, although there is a kernel of truth, it suggests only working class people are racist, which is absurd). People who are nothing more than thugs and looters also joined the riots, capitalising on the chaos and stretched emergency services. Encrypted messaging software, such as Telegram, were used to spread (mis)information and coordinate the main ringleaders of the riots.

Progressive and leftwing groups were able to organise a response and began to counter the far-right elements, some with admirable success. Although reliance on the police and the courts and calls for a clampdown on demonstrations and free speech are potential elephant traps, significant sentences have already been handed down to some of those participating in the riots, be it physically or online.

However, in response to the initial response by the police, courts and the left, the far-right used the internet and social media to begin a new phase - claiming that those arrests and counter-demonstrations were the result of ‘two-tier’ policing, claiming they were being unfairly discriminated against by the police (despite it being found to be ‘institutionally racist’!). The final stage, I predict, will be to highlight the custodial sentences as ‘the establishment’ trying to ‘silence’ or ‘cancel’ those wanting to speak ‘the truth’. The online presence will continue, as a ‘defensive’ wave, ready to jump on any future opportunity that presents itself.

What to do?

As a result of the riots and the counter-protests, questions are inevitably raised, such as whether what we are seeing is fascism, whether this rise of the right is different from those of the past, and what the response of the left should be. Without much hesitation I think we can dismiss any talk about the developing situation or the existing component parts - the groups, networks or individuals - constituting fascism.

There may well be quasi-fascist tendencies - such as the authoritarian ownership of vital parts of the internet such as Twitter (now called X) - but, as has been outlined in these pages before, the incorrect application of the term ‘fascist’ (used by some as little more than a swearword against those they oppose) is detrimental to the debate needed on the left. And regarding what is termed the ‘rise’ of the far right, I am prepared to accept at this point that the antagonisms and conflicts which have centred around the concept of ‘immigration’ have existed for decades or even longer. I am therefore open to persuasion as to whether this is a ‘rise’ without precedent or is of the ‘cyclical’ or repetitive nature. As to the response the left should take, I believe one aspect which is deserving of more attention is the battle for the internet and social media.

We are seeing calls from MPs, the media, the police and judiciary, for more to be done to restrict potentially ‘harmful’ material from being circulated online and on social media, such as we saw in the period following the Southport attack. One path being explored is incorporating this into the Online Safety Bill, which was created predominantly to address the issue of child pornography and grooming online. For obvious reasons, the left should be wary of such legislation being extended to include ‘harmful’ political material. Whilst some may welcome it being used to counter the far right, the bill would be utilised with even more ruthlessness against a revolutionary left movement threatening the capitalist system as a whole.

The far right is currently years ahead of the left regarding social media engagement. Throughout the Brexit referendum, then Covid, and now in the political movements around the world, which have seen members of far-right organisations win seats at all levels of government and administration, they have been able to refine their online tactics to engage with all users of the social-media platforms, not just those looking for their content.

What we are talking about is not just a few skinheads furiously punching hateful bile into their keyboards - or even a few expensive-suited, opportunist politicians regurgitating rhetoric around immigration to their followers. We are talking about well-funded, highly sophisticated technology, operated by digital experts and strategists, creating a highly effective digital propaganda machine and complex techniques to engage with and influence global politics.

Anti-establishment

During the Covid pandemic, for example, the general message from the right was not the expected one about ‘immigrants bringing disease’ and such - although such idiocy could be found - but was the highly orchestrated claim about being ‘anti-establishment’, ‘pro-freedom’, etc, which was calculated through digital analysis to be more affective to a wider number of people beyond the traditional far-right base.

Most notable, however, were the Brexit referendum and the 2016 US presidential election, where targeted political advertising was used, created using the mass harvesting of hundreds of millions of data points collected through social media interactions, in order for specific slogans and content to appear to particular groups of people in targeted areas. At the centre of the scandal were not members of Patriotic Alternative or some such far-right group, but the ‘consultancy firm’, Cambridge Analytica.

Whilst Russia and China are often offered up as the ‘bogeymen’ of these tactics with accusations of ‘hacking’ and ‘influencing’ politics (with some justification, but in this case claims that Channel3Now has links to Russia have been found to be false), according to some reports, a greater amount of activity and finance - amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars - has in fact come from US Christian rightwing groups, attempting to influence international political movements (once again highlighting the global coordination of the modern right wing). And just in case this is not enough to ensure they reach their targeted audience, trusted individuals such as Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk own whole social media platforms, with the ability to manipulate the algorithms which help determine what content is promoted or indeed suppressed.

Public discourse

If you do not happen to be on any of the social media platforms, you could have been forgiven for thinking this conquering of the internet by the far right was of little significance up until the point where you saw thousands of rioters on the streets causing damage and fear. But, as I have tried to explain, this is just the more overt outcome of their digital dominance, to be carried out by the ‘foot soldiers’. There are far more subtle, insidious results they achieve through this strategy.

As the ‘traditional’ media - particularly newspapers - continue to decline in popularity, those same outlets, owned by the same members of the ruling class, have moved online. In order to generate income, they now require visits to their website for the advertisers to pay them. In order to ensure they get that traffic, they are required to produce extraordinary content in order to be noticed by users scrolling their feeds. This leads to inflammatory headlines, which are in turn shared and circulated around the internet, as we saw with the lies about the Southport attacker. This in turn begins to affect the algorithms, which make such headlines ever-increasingly more present to users. These are then taken up by television and radio news programmes, maybe with some of the ‘influencers’ on to talk about the subject, and then politicians are asked to comment and create policy, ultimately affecting political and public discourse. After all, it must be the ‘will of the people’, given how popular it is on social media!

How the left engages with the internet and social media from the back foot on which we find ourselves is difficult to propose. I am by no means a technophobe, but equally I am no digital expert. Direct online intervention - countering individual rightwing networks and content - whilst worthwhile in some respects, is time-consuming, labour-intensive and very much on the micro-scale in today’s digital landscape. Trying to force the algorithms to promote ‘our’ content is not impossible but very difficult, given the amounts of dark money being pumped into rightwing networks and the ownership of the social media platforms. Equally, what is called ‘social listening’ - the macro-scale collection and analysis of hundreds, thousands, even millions of data points - is for similar reasons impossible for individual organisations on the left. It is expensive, complex and can be morally questionable.

Despite the challenges created by the current ownership of the internet structures and social media platforms by the ruling class, who are at this stage prepared to allow its use by the far right, we may soon have to question whether the printing of thousands of leaflets for distribution at leftwing events is a realistic counter to the digital organising taking place with success by the far right. The left is simply not present in this particular battle. And, as I have said, nature abhors a vacuum. The right will occupy it permanently if we do not figure out how to.