The BBC reports:
Intervention by police within the first 24 hours of a terrorist event could be key to halting the spread of cyber-hate, a new study has found.
Cardiff University researchers found online hate in the aftermath of the murder of Lee Rigby peaked in the first 24 hours then declined sharply.
The research is being published in the British Journal of Criminology on the second anniversary of his murder near Woolwich Barracks in London.
They found tweets from police and media were about five times more likely to be retweeted compared with tweets from other users following the attack.
[...] During the study, social and computer scientists at the university focused on the production and spread of racial and religious cyberhate and the Twitter battle between police and far-right political groups in the first 36 hours following the attack.
[...] Dr Matthew Williams said: "We concluded that cyber-hate has a 'half-life' following crime events of national interest.
"The sharp de-escalation of hate can be explained by post-event media and police Twitter messages that have a defusing effect and counter-speech from everyday Twitter users that challenge abusers."
Dr Pete Burnap said: "The ability to observe a large portion of the population in near real-time via social media networks provides those responsible for ensuring the safety of the public a new window onto mass social reaction."
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday May 25 2015, @07:40PM
My point is that you can't keep information from people. Even places like East Germany and the USSR fell eventually, despite efforts to control what the population saw, heard and read. It will be the same with Islam and religion in general. Fundamentalism will die away, and sooner than you imagine. It's already happening.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:09AM
The USSR was not motivated by religious fundamentalism though, now we're dealing with people who've chosen to be ignorant.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:17PM
The USSR was not motivated by religious fundamentalism though, now we're dealing with people who've chosen to be ignorant.
No, there isn't much difference. The children of religious fundamentalists haven't chosen to be ignorant. They haven't chosen anything. They've had no choice at all and they've been kept in an information black-out so that they will find it very difficult to form their own beliefs and opinions.
It's just another bunch of people using their power to control and oppress.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].