Google Ideas think tank gathering former extremists to battle radicalization

[alp227]

Source: The Washington Post

Technology giant Google, having conquered the Internet and the world around it, is taking on a new challenge: violent extremism.

The company, through its eight-month-old think tank, Google Ideas, is paying for 80 former Muslim extremists, neo-Nazis, U.S. gang members and other former radicals to gather in Dublin this weekend to explore how technology can play a role in de-radicalization efforts around the globe.

The “formers,” as they have been dubbed by Google, will be surrounded by 120 thinkers, activists, philanthropists and business leaders. The goal is to dissect the question of what draws some people, especially young people, to extremist movements and why some of them leave.

“We are trying to reframe issues like radicalization and see how we can apply technology to it,” said Jared Cohen, the 29-year-old former State Department official who agreed to head Google Ideas with the understanding he would host such a conference. “Technology is part of every challenge in the world and a part of every solution.”

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/google-ideas-think-tank-gathering-former-extremists-to-battle-radicalization/2011/06/22/AGZIW0iH_singlePage.html

[RandomThoughts]

1. If they use censorship to do it.

It has to be by the representation of the people, and the tendency is for such things to be representative of a status quo, and many times the status quo is against the people.

Censorship, requires the ability to know what should be censored, and pushing content in front of people above other content is a form of censorship, if some 'messages' are picked by a group that does not represent society.

I do like Googles company model, and also know modifications to searches can be being done at ISPs or NSA black rooms also.

But anyways, anytime an information source takes on a role of 'effecting society' then it can not be 'owned' it must be under civilian review, also as soon as a information thing like google becomes a significant library for many people, it can not be controlled by a few people, and has to be broken up, or under public transparent review.

And they have not conquered the world, although I have to go to other sites many times to find clips, and sometimes those sites also filter clips.

Although thinking google could even filter something would be funny, and limiting. However an effort to try to control, not for better heart, with inclusion of society, would seem wrong.

[Springer9]

4. When I was a kid many families owned printed Encyclopedias

often purchased from a door to door salesman on a time-pay program. These information sources were "owned" by private companies with no "civilian" review or government over-site. Because these volumes took on the role of 'effecting society' many of the same criticisms of bias, slanted cultural perspective and 'messages' being picked by groups or individuals that were not expert in the field or did not represent society were leveled in the day.

Oh, we had choices, Encyclopedia Britannica, Collier's and World Book, but much like today you needed to be careful with your choices.



And you can look that up in your Funk&Wagnalls.

[canetoad]

5. Yeah, but how long did it take

For encyclopedia articles to go viral? Answer me that!

[creeksneakers2]

2. Interesting

Because so far the Internet has facilitated extremism.

[mwooldri]

8. Internet facilitates a lot of things.

It's good to see Google try to do something like this.

However there has been extremism around for years, decades and centuries even.

We can hope but extremism IMO will always exist somewhere.

[intaglio]

11. Err, what?

Any evidence? And by evidence I mean something other than your aunt Lulu had it from her knitting buddies on Ravelry.

The internet has made extremism has become more visible and ideas that previously were accepted without demur have been revealed as being extremist. But facilitated? I'd need to see some damn good evidence on that.

[boppers]

15. "But facilitated? I'd need to see some damn good evidence on that."

Truthers.
Birthers.
Chemtrails.
Gang-stalking.
Frankenfood.
Anti-Vax.
Area 51.
Alien Visits.


The internet lets the deranged and paranoid have a greater venue, with like minded peers, without challenge, without authority (or logic) stepping in and saying "uh, no, that's wrong, and you need to seek mental health counseling".

As a counterweight, Google's work has been on things like Hilltop, to try and ascertain actual authorities on topics, and differentiate between un-refereed sites like blogs, forums (etc.), and sort the madness of extremist viewpoints as compared to reasoned thought.

[intaglio]

17. All that you cite here are not "extremists"

With the exception of "Gang Stalkers" they are conspiracy nuts and conspiracy nuts have been with us since forever.

Gang stalking is a social phenomenon largely made far more visible by the internet but has its roots in such human activities as social exclusion (sending to Coventry) and victimisation of the outsider.

/edit for spelling

[boppers]

19. *blink*

I can't tell if you're trying to highlight the particular nature of individual delusion, or.... what.

Many or most people can explain why the *others* have mental health problems, but cannot confront their own.

[intaglio]

20. FFS do not confuse individual fantasies with "Extremism"

If you persist in this idiocy try using Google with "define:extremism"

The top result I got was from Princeton's Wordnet, "any political theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies"

The next is Wikipedia which has a slightly different emphasis, "Extremism is any ideology or political act far outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards ..."

I defy you to fit your examples into these clear statements of the meaning of the word you abuse.

[No Elephants]

16. It's facilitated some uprisings in the Middle East (aka Arab spring), as well as some terrorist acts

And after the U.S. clamped down on communications by private folk, Osama Bin Laden used "chatter" on the Internet to facilitate having the U.S. keep increasing the money it was spending on the so-called War on Terror.

[intaglio]

18. So the "Arab Spring" is extremism in your view

I do not believe so, the governments they are fighting are the extremists attempting to force extreme social and religious policies on ordinary people.

OBL did not "chatter on the internet" some of his followers published tapes or tirades on the internet and, before 9-11, some few extremists used it as an avenue of communication but no more than that. Remember extreme governments and organisations, especially the religious ones, clamp down on the use of the internet by their followers because the internet provides comparatively bias free sources of information.

[creeksneakers2]

21. Here

http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/exploiting-internet.html

Also, look at how groups like the birthers flock to the net. Extremists use it to find each other, promote their ideas, and communicate with followers.

[intaglio]

25. Birthers do have extremists amongst them

but conspiracy theorists are not, automatically, extremist you might as well say that D&D players are extremist or knitters. Where there are extremists in the ranks or a group they were probably extremist before they found the conspiracy theory.

Extremists will search the ranks of those who believe in nonsense but all they find are the weak and the foolish. Before the Internet they had it easy, they would infiltrate an organisation or community, then tell the big lie so that even the intelligent came to believe it. Now there are too many people who can destroy the lies with a 30 second Internet search. Others can easily find out that a supposed tidal wave of support for extremist ideas is no more than the bursting of a gnat's fart. It is true that the weak or the bigoted or the foolish will ignore the evidence for a time but even they fall away when the extremist reveals their true aims.

Extremism is utterly dependent on lack of information - not on its availability

[creeksneakers2]

26. I disagree

Extremists are incapable of considering information that conflicts with their beliefs.

If you read the link, It talked about Nazis and people like that, not conspiracy theorists, except that the two overlap somewhat.

[intaglio]

27. Disagree away, but personally I find

... your position extreme

:beer:

and yes that is a joke

[JDPriestly]

12. My husband receives incredibly wrong information from one of

our friend's right-wing e-mail source. And our friend becomes very upset when my husband calls him out on the factual errors.

But of course, our friend doesn't just send the erroneous information to us. It goes to quite a list of correspondents. It's hard to correct information that is disseminated in that way.

[cui bono]

14. "Reply all" should help do it. n/t

[JDPriestly]

22. It does, but it gets him into a peck of trouble with this friend.

[cui bono]

23. That's good! Maybe his friend will think twice before making himself look so misinformed.

;)

I stopped with political emails a long time ago to avoid those types of situations and to not be an annoyance. Unfortunately my closest girlfriends aren't the least bit interested in what's going on, so I just try to casually slip things into the conversation whenever I can. They think I'm nuts and I think they are too. :)

[JDPriestly]

24. Good for you for at least bringing a touch of political awareness

into the conversation.

[No Elephants]

13. Also fostered rebellion against extremism.

But, I guess violent rebellion against extreme oppression is also extremism?

Funny how all our conventional ideas support oppressors, isn't it? Wonder how that happened.

[Downwinder]

3. I don't see Cristian Fundamentalists on the list.

[snagglepuss]

10. Hmm. I wonder why that is?

[ananda]

6. I REALLy resent them using the word "radical" in that context.

I am a PROUD and LOUD liberal lefty RADICAL!

[StarsInHerHair]

7. why in Dublin & not in CA?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.