Trends of 2020: What increased internet has meant for terrorism in Europe

The European Union, United Kingdom and Switzerland have had an unconventional year for identifying trends in terrorist activity. The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns, travel restrictions, and digitization of everyday life have posed difficulties for some terrorist groups and opportunities for others.

A Europol report on terrorism in Europe declared that in 2020, six EU member states experienced a total of 57 completed, foiled, or failed terrorist attacks. Taking the UK into account, the number increases to 119. Upon analysis of their data, Europol revealed that all completed jihadist attacks were committed by individuals supposedly acting alone. Three of the foiled attacks involved multiple actors or small groups. All the attackers in the UK and EU were male and typically aged between 18 and 33, and in only one case in Switzerland was the perpetrator a woman. The same report identifies right-wing extremist trends over the last three years. Findings depict similarities between Islamist terrorists and right-wing terrorists in terms of age and gender. Right-wing terror suspects are increasingly young in age, many of which are still minors at the time of their arrest. Right-wing suspects appear intricately connected to violent transnational organizations on the internet.

COVID-19 lockdown restrictions have vastly increased European citizens’ reliance on the internet for everyday tasks, both professional and recreational. Statista recently released data showing that 91% of EU households had internet access in 2020, reaching an all-time high. But with the increased access and usage of the internet comes the risk of it being used for malicious purposes, specifically for terrorist organizing. The quantity of propaganda produced by official ISIL media outlets reportedly decreased in 2020. Despite this, ISIL continues to use the internet to stay connected to potential attackers who align themselves with the same ideology. These connections have allowed ISIL to call for lone actors to commit terrorist attacks. The data from Europol’s 2020 report confirms that it was lone-actor attacks that comprised most of the “successful” terror attacks in 2020, while attacks planned in a group were typically prevented.

Their right-wing extremist counterparts have developed sophisticated methods of recruitment in the internet age, particularly over the last year. Right-wing terror suspects have developed communication strategies via gaming apps and chat servers typically used by gamers. Presumably to attract a younger demographic, right-wing extremists with links to terror suspects have diversified their internet use to include gaming platforms, messenger services, and social media. In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic and vaccination programs, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate notes that Discord has been a vital tool for spreading disinformation and conspiracy theories involving racial hatred. In this case, strategies used in online games to reward progression have been translated to serve right-wing propaganda. Thus, points are awarded to the most active members of certain discord servers who can fabricate and promote conspiracy theories, often including antisemitic tropes involving Bill Gates. Virtual currency plays a key role in promoting the narrative of success and reward, and its ability to capture the interest of minors who are active in the virtual space.

Combating terrorist threats in Europe has always been a challenge on account of the sporadic nature of terrorists themselves. While the people behind the attacks may vary in socio-economic upbringing, religious affiliation and nationality, some similarities remain. Based on the commonalities, solutions to tackling internet-based strategies could be introduced. If the EU were to develop a common framework for disrupting and taking down radical groups online, it could find greater success in combating digital extremism. ISIL online networks on Telegram were taken down in November 2019, and they have since struggled to recreate networks to a similar degree.

Gender and age also give some insight for where to begin in diminishing future recruitment to ideology-based terrorism. While internet usage cannot be regulated, education can. Europe may benefit from the cooperation of educational institutions at all level in raising awareness of the dangers of online radicalization. Workshops, information posters, and seminars introducing the intricacies of radicalization would inform vulnerable students on the potential downfalls of internet consumption. This would create a clear understanding of modern conspiracy theories, where they come from and why they exist.

Additionally, understanding the meaning behind extremist imagery, symbols, numbers, phrases, and music (as well as how to report them on the internet) would increase awareness among otherwise distracted students consumed by online trends and activity.

Paired with the awareness commitment, the EU should set a budget meeting the needs of mental health services in schools to introduce spaces in which students may express their concerns. This in turn could curb their vulnerability to online extremist groups looking to recruit.

The Christchurch Call and Eliminating Violent Extremism Online

On March 15th, the world witnessed an atrocity that left fifty-one people dead at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand. A live stream video capturing the massacre circulated online across social media platforms for two months and enraged people across the globe.

The international community provided a response on May 15th. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron announced the formation of a global initiative to combat online extremism and related terrorism. “The Christchurch Call to Action”  (The Call) is an agreement between countries and tech companies to unite in this difficult endeavor.

Ardern and Macron called upon countries and tech companies to voluntarily join this global initiative. An impressive list heeded this request. The purpose of The Call is to transform the internet into a safer environment through cooperation, education and research whilst protecting basic human rights and freedoms.

This global commitment stands tall against the United Kingdom’s Online Harms White Paper. In opposition to The Call, London suggested watchdogs, regulations, and fines to govern its cyberspace. The Christchurch Call offers a global voluntary commitment to making the internet safe, through collaboration between states and tech companies. It is important to give these entities the decision to join rather than threats of coercion. Joining on their own accord shows that The Call is a united front against online extremism.

Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter released a nine-point plan, and a joint statement in response to The Call. This preliminary framework lays out five individual plans and four collaborative efforts, offering better security, updating terms of service, education, and shared technology development.

The United States represents one of the countries that were unwilling to join. Washington stated that while they supported the overall goal, it was not an appropriate time to sign on. Concerns rest with freedom of expression. In the past,  the Trump Administration accused social media companies of denying these rights.

The governance of cyberspace presents the main issue for American interests. Cyberspace mirrors the Wild West. It is largely self-governed where no state can claim authority. The only entities who manage it are people and companies. The Call initiates the conversation over the governance of cyberspace and if it can be governed in the first place.

If signed, states not only volunteer to safeguard the internet, but for it to be governed by all signatories. It is problematic if these countries do not agree with one another. Many countries use cyberspace for various purposes that may conflict with The Call and signing it may forfeit states’ rights to act in cyberspace freely.

Another point of interest is the co-existence of the Online Harms White Paper and The Call. They both tackle the same issue but in different ways. The differences in approaching the same problem creates possible dysfunction. Already there is a conflict of interest regarding appropriate methods of combating online extremism and online terrorism between states who have signed The Call.

Ideas and solutions must be consistent in order to regulate cyberspace. Discussion over how to achieve goals is expected but one country implementing punitive regulations and another pursuing a holistic approach sends a mixed message.

As it stands, the Christchurch Call to Action appears as a list of strategies states and tech companies plan to implement. These include calls for transparency, collaboration, and better security. Terrorism is a complicated social issue, but having key actors working together to counter online terror and extremism is a giant leap forward. It will be interesting to witness how states work with each other and how they collaborate with tech companies to address the issue.

The EU Calls for Removal of all Extremist Content on Social Media

The European Union has given social media companies like Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter three months to demonstrate that they are making efforts to rid their platforms of extremist content in order to fight online radicalization. This has been a significant issue in Europe, and the European Commission hopes that by removing extremist content an hour after notification, social media companies can halt the proliferation of radicalization and extremist ideologies [1].

This could certainly help stop the lone-wolf radicalization phenomenon that’s been occurring online, but certain realities of this plan remain unclear. The proposal adds to the existing, voluntary system agreed by the EU and social media companies, under which social media platforms are not legally responsible for the content circulating on their sites [2].

It’s unclear how feasible the EU proposal is since companies’ attempts to deliver on the one hour mandate will be a struggle. For example, Google currently reviews 98% of reported videos within 24 hours [3].

The recommendations are non-binding, but could potentially be taken into account by European courts. For now, they are meant as guidelines for how companies should remove illegal content [4].

The next few months will demonstrate how the EU will proceed and whether tech companies will become more helpful in the fight against violent extremism. While it is certainly a step in the right direction with regard to decreasing online radicalization, there will be pushback from companies that find the increased effort and potential legal battles bothersome.


[1] Gibbs, S. (2018, March 1). EU gives Facebook and Google three months to tackle extremist content. Retrieved March 1, 2018, from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/01/eu-facebook-google-youtube-twitter-extremist-content

[2] Social media faces EU ‘1-hour rule’ on taking down terror content. (March 1, 2018.). Retrieved March 1, 2018, from https://www.ft.com/content/708b82c4-1d65-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6

[3] Social media faces EU ‘1-hour rule’ on taking down terror content. (March 1,2018). Retrieved March 1, 2018, from https://www.ft.com/content/708b82c4-1d65-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6

[4] Gibbs, S. (2018, March 1). EU gives Facebook and Google three months to tackle extremist content. Retrieved March 1, 2018, from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/01/eu-facebook-google-youtube-twitter-extremist-content