Algorithmic radicalization is the concept thatrecommender algorithms on popular social media sites, such asYouTube andFacebook, drive users toward progressively more extreme content over time, leading to the development ofradicalized extremist political views. Algorithms meticulously record user interactions, encompassing likes, dislikes and the duration of time watching content, with the objective of generating an endless stream of media designed to sustainuser engagement. The phenomenon ofecho chamber channels has been demonstrated to exacerbate thepolarization of consumers, primarily through the reinforcement of media preferences and the validation of one's existing beliefs.[1][2][3][4]
Algorithmic radicalization remains a controversial phenomenon as it is often not in the best interest of social media companies to remove echo chamber channels.[5][6] To what extent recommender algorithms are actually responsible for radicalization remains disputed. Studies have found contradictory results regarding the promotion of extremist content by algorithms.
Social media platforms learn the interests and likes of the user to modify their experiences in their feed to keep them engaged and scrolling, known as afilter bubble.[7] An echo chamber is formed when users come across beliefs that magnify or reinforce their thoughts and form a group of like-minded users in a closed system.[1] Echo chambers spread information without any opposing beliefs and can possibly lead toconfirmation bias. According togroup polarization theory, an echo chamber can potentially lead users and groups towards more extreme radicalized positions.[8] According to the National Library of Medicine, "Users online tend to prefer information adhering to their worldviews, ignore dissenting information, and form polarized groups around shared narratives. Furthermore, when polarization is high, misinformation quickly proliferates."[8]
Facebook's algorithm focuses on recommending content that makes the user want to interact. They rank content by prioritizing popular posts by friends, viral content, and sometimes divisive content. Each feed is personalized to the user's specific interests which can sometimes lead users towards an echo chamber of troublesome content.[9] Users can find their list of interests the algorithm uses by going to the "Your ad Preferences" page. According to a Pew Research study, 74% of Facebook users did not know that list existed until they were directed towards that page in the study.[10] It is also relatively common for Facebook to assign political labels to their users. In recent years,[when?] Facebook has started using artificial intelligence to change the content users see in their feed and what is recommended to them. A document known asThe Facebook Files has revealed that their AI system prioritizesuser engagement over everything else. The Facebook Files has also demonstrated that controlling the AI systems has proven difficult to handle.[11]
In an August 2019 internal memo leaked in 2021, Facebook has admitted that "the mechanics of our platforms are not neutral",[12][13] concluding that in order to reach maximum profits, optimization for engagement is necessary. In order to increase engagement, algorithms have found that hate, misinformation, and politics are instrumental for app activity.[14] As referenced in the memo, "The more incendiary the material, the more it keeps users engaged, the more it is boosted by the algorithm."[12] According to a 2018 study, "false rumors spread faster and wider than true information... They found falsehoods are 70% more likely to be retweeted on Twitter than the truth, and reach their first 1,500 people six times faster. This effect is more pronounced with political news than other categories."[15]
YouTube has been around since 2005 and has more than 2.5 billion monthly users. YouTube discovery content systems focus on the user's personal activity (watched, favorites, likes) to direct them to recommended content. YouTube's algorithm is accountable for roughly 70% of users' recommended videos and what drives people to watch certain content.[16] According to a 2022 study by theMozilla Foundation, users have little power to keep unsolicited videos out of their suggested recommended content. This includes videos about hate speech, livestreams, etc.[17][16]
YouTube has been identified as an influential platform for spreading radicalized content.Al-Qaeda and similarextremist groups have been linked to using YouTube for recruitment videos and engaging with international media outlets. In a research study published by theAmerican Behavioral Scientist Journal, they researched "whether it is possible to identify a set of attributes that may help explain part of the YouTube algorithm's decision-making process".[18] The results of the study showed that YouTube's algorithm recommendations for extremism content factor into the presence of radical keywords in a video's title. In February 2023, in the case ofGonzalez v. Google, the question at hand is whether or not Google, the parent company of YouTube, is protected from lawsuits claiming that the site's algorithms aided terrorists in recommendingISIS videos to users.Section 230 is known to generally protect online platforms from civil liability for the content posted by its users.[19]
Multiple studies have found little to no evidence to suggest that YouTube's algorithms direct attention towards far-right content to those not already engaged with it.[20][21][22]
TikTok is a platform that recommends videos to a user's 'For You Page' (FYP), making every users' page different. With the nature of the algorithm behind the app, TikTok's FYP has been linked to showing more explicit and radical videos over time based on users' previous interactions on the app.[23] Since TikTok's inception, the app has been scrutinized for misinformation and hate speech as those forms of media usually generate more interactions to the algorithm.[24]
Various extremist groups, includingjihadist organizations, have utilized TikTok to disseminate propaganda, recruit followers, and incite violence. The platform's algorithm, which recommends content based on user engagement, can expose users to extremist content that aligns with their interests or interactions.[25][failed verification]
As of 2022, TikTok's head of US Security has put out a statement that "81,518,334 videos were removed globally between April – June for violating our Community Guidelines or Terms of Service" to cut back on hate speech, harassment, and misinformation.[26]
Studies have noted instances where individuals were radicalized through content encountered on TikTok. For example, in early 2023, Austrian authorities thwarted a plot against an LGBTQ+pride parade that involved two teenagers and a 20-year-old who were inspired by jihadist content on TikTok. The youngest suspect, 14 years old, had been exposed to videos created by Islamist influencers glorifying jihad. These videos led him to further engagement with similar content, eventually resulting in his involvement in planning an attack.[25]
Another case involved the arrest of several teenagers inVienna, Austria, in 2024, who were planning to carry out a terrorist attack at aTaylor Swift concert. The investigation revealed that some of the suspects had been radicalized online, with TikTok being one of the platforms used to disseminate extremist content that influenced their beliefs and actions.[25]
The U.S. Department of Justice defines 'Lone-wolf' (self) terrorism as "someone who acts alone in a terrorist attack without the help or encouragement of a government or a terrorist organization".[27] Through social media outlets on the internet, 'Lone-wolf' terrorism has been on the rise, being linked to algorithmic radicalization.[28] Through echo-chambers on the internet, viewpoints typically seen as radical were accepted and quickly adopted by other extremists.[29] These viewpoints are encouraged by forums, group chats, and social media to reinforce their beliefs.[30]
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(November 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The Social Dilemma is a 2020 docudrama about how algorithms behind social media enables addiction, while possessing abilities to manipulate people's views, emotions, and behavior to spread conspiracy theories and disinformation. The film repeatedly uses buzz words such as 'echo chambers' and 'fake news' to provepsychological manipulation on social media, therefore leading topolitical manipulation. In the film, Ben falls deeper into asocial media addiction as the algorithm found that his social media page has a 62.3% chance of long-term engagement. This leads into more videos on the recommended feed for Ben and he eventually becomes more immersed into propaganda and conspiracy theories, becoming more polarized with each video.
In theCommunications Decency Act, Section 230 states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".[31] Section 230 protects the media from liabilities or being sued of third-party content, such as illegal activity from a user.[31] However, critics argue that this approach reduces a company's incentive to remove harmful content or misinformation, and this loophole has allowed social media companies to maximize profits through pushing radical content without legal risks.[32] This claim has itself been criticized by proponents of Section 230, as prior to its passing, courts had ruled inStratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. that moderation in any capacity introduces a liability to content providers as "publishers" of the content they chose to leave up.[33]
Lawmakers have drafted legislation that would weaken or remove Section 230 protections over algorithmic content.House DemocratsAnna Eshoo,Frank Pallone Jr.,Mike Doyle, andJan Schakowsky introduced the "Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act" in October 2021 asH.R. 5596. The bill died in committee,[34] but it would have removed Section 230 protections for service providers related to personalizedrecommendation algorithms that present content to users if those algorithms knowingly or recklessly deliver content that contributes to physical or severe emotional injury.[35]