Again, for the book club, we read a book that I need to express myself about. It was Going Dark. After we heard the IST lecture by Julia Ebner, we had to read that book. The book promises to explore the secret social lives of extremists.
I liked the book overall. It's a zoo of obscure internet communities. Every chapter describes a story. Julia joins a community, talks with its members, and listens. Sometimes she even meets some people in person.
I like that she is honest. She expects to infiltrate the group and learn about the people and the reasons why they joined. Sometimes it's successful. Sometimes, it's naive.
For Julia, it's hard to fit in. She needs to pretend and does not participate in their activities (so she doesn't form bonds). The naivety shows when she describes how she felt at a neo-nazi concert. She expected to find someone relatable at the concert. It's hard to do for a woman among big tattooed men (I would not feel comfortable there myself).
She talks about radicals and extremists, and from her definition, everyone mentioned in the book is one. There is also an underlying assumption that extremists should be monitored and possibly de-platformed.
I don't have a problem with calling some group radicals (we don't have a good word for really violent radicals, so by this, we devaluate this word, but whatever), but I have a problem with the assumption that the groups are harmful to democracy or society in general.
In the book, she mentions radical groups: jihadi wives and supporters of the Christchurch attack. But some groups are just a bit weird and harmless. The problem is with the gray zone groups. There the labeling seems more like an avoidance of the arguments of these groups. It's easier to label someone than to discuss the topic.
The funniest chapter is about traditional wives. On the internet, where you can find a group supporting any sexual practice and any hobby, Julia is surprised by women that want to be traditional wives. They think feminism is stupid and women should stay at home with children.
In the chapter, she describes the appeal of such a group. But labeling self-help groups without political ambition as extremist is a bit too much.
One chapter deals with dating sites for whites. On the internet that responds to any preference, you should not be surprised by this. And not label it as extremist because there is a dating site for people who want to have sex dressed as a furry animal.
Some groups she infiltrates have a different opinion from hers. It is the only problem with them. She talks about generation identity. The party wants fewer migrants and makes sure that no nazis will join them. She even gives examples of people banned from the movement for nazi ties.
Another such group is the Charlottesville protesters. The protest turned violent. From what we hear from Julia, organizers tried to prevent that. (Funnily enough, she watches a live stream of a protester while he gets assaulted. It is followed by calls for violence from common supporters. Julia deals mainly with them than with the actual violence.)
Then there are news networks that she connects to the far right. I don't know what to think about them. She talks about Tommy Robins, founder of one such network. From what she says, these networks talk about problems about which traditional media don't.
The group that supported the Christchurch attack and jihadi wives are dangerous. They teach how to build a bomb and support attacks. Julia reacted immediately and flagged these groups to the secret service. That's a good response, but the story ends there.
Hackers are very dangerous. They usually don't have an ideology, but they have capabilities. Julia visited the ISIS hacker group, but they were not so good. The best "evil" hackers are chaos-loving pirates.
There exists a troll "army" Reconquista Germanica. They organize like military and propagate anti-immigrant views.
Trolls with political motives are a symptom of democracy. If anyone can express their opinion, some people will do it more forcefully. To fight it is stupid and not very democratic. Someone works in a think-tank. Someone shares political content on social media. For me, they are similar (I wouldn't read a book written by the latter).
Julia infiltrates the QAnon conspiracy. There, I don't know. To play social media for your cause seems fine by me (democratic), but to spread disinformation for fun is worse.
For me, most of the groups are just weird subcultures that can be left alone. They should not be fought against and demonized. Julia does that with some groups more than they should deserve. She supposes that every group that refuses migration is racist and a threat to democracy.
If you don't share this axiom and value freedom of speech, she is the one who wants to shut them down.
I would also appreciate a comparative dive to groups on all political spectrum. Would they be weird to a similar degree?
By "exposing" people from these groups, she has an implicit opinion that democracy would be better if these groups were forbidden.
That differs from my opinion. The strength of democracy is that everyone can express themselves. A group with unaddressed problems means that we are just waiting for violence when the group loses patience.
If the "problem" is open for a discussion, the people might learn that it's not a problem. But if you ban some opinions, the only solution is violence. How can you convince a racist that jews are running a conspiracy when you cannot talk about that?
It seemed that Julia wrote the book with the opinion: "These people are a threat to democracy. I'll try to find out why they are doing that." I think that the assumption: "These people are very different. I'll find out more about them." would make the book much better.
During the book club, we agreed that some groups were just weird, not a threat. We discussed if it's mobilizing to see what others are doing. We agreed that not too much. Politics is a mostly zero-sum game (especially now), so we are better off doing something else.