Modeling islamist extremist communications on social media using contextual dimensions: Religion, ideology, and hate

38Citations
Citations of this article
167Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Terror attacks have been linked in part to online extremist content. Online conversations are cloaked in religious ambiguity, with deceptive intentions, often twisted from mainstream meaning to serve a malevolent ideology. Although tens of thousands of Islamist extremism supporters consume such content, they are a small fraction relative to peaceful Muslims. The efforts to contain the ever-evolving extremism on social media platforms have remained inadequate and mostly ineffective. Divergent extremist and mainstream contexts challenge machine interpretation, with a particular threat to the precision of classification algorithms. Radicalization is a subtle long-running persuasive process that occurs over time. Our context-aware computational approach to the analysis of extremist content on Twitter breaks down this persuasion process into building blocks that acknowledge inherent ambiguity and sparsity that likely challenge both manual and automated classification. Based on prior empirical and qualitative research in social sciences, particularly political science, we model this process using a combination of three contextual dimensions – religion, ideology, and hate – each elucidating a degree of radicalization and highlighting independent features to render them computationally accessible. We utilize domain-specific knowledge resources for each of these contextual dimensions such as Qur’an for religion, the books of extremist ideologues and preachers for political ideology and a social media hate speech corpus for hate. The significant sensitivity of the Islamist extremist ideology and its local and global security implications require reliable algorithms for modelling such communications on Twitter. Our study makes three contributions to reliable analysis: (i) Development of a computational approach rooted in the contextual dimensions of religion, ideology, and hate, which reflects strategies employed by online Islamist extremist groups, (ii) An in-depth analysis of relevant tweet datasets with respect to these dimensions to exclude likely mislabeled users, and (iii) A framework for understanding online radicalization as a process to assist counter-programming. Given the potentially significant social impact, we evaluate the performance of our algorithms to minimize mislabeling, where our context-aware approach outperforms a competitive baseline by 10.2% in precision, thereby enhancing the potential of such tools for use in human review.

References Powered by Scopus

GloVe: Global vectors for word representation

26835Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic

12913Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The radicalization puzzle: A theoretical synthesis of empirical approaches to homegrown extremism

241Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Online Extremism Detection: A Systematic Literature Review with Emphasis on Datasets, Classification Techniques, Validation Methods, and Tools

50Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Shades of Knowledge-Infused Learning for Enhancing Deep Learning

49Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Online Extremism Detection in Textual Content: A Systematic Literature Review

29Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kursuncu, U., Gaur, M., Castillo, C., Alambo, A., Thirunarayan, K., Shalin, V., … Sheth, A. (2019). Modeling islamist extremist communications on social media using contextual dimensions: Religion, ideology, and hate. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW). https://doi.org/10.1145/3359253

Readers over time

‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25015304560

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 48

59%

Lecturer / Post doc 21

26%

Researcher 8

10%

Professor / Associate Prof. 5

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 28

47%

Social Sciences 15

25%

Arts and Humanities 11

18%

Neuroscience 6

10%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0