Social media and political violence – how one can break this vicious circle

The assassination attempt on Donald Trump on July 13, 2024, has added further fuel to an already heated election season. In this case, political violence was perpetrated against the party that it’s mostly representedThe incident shows how uncontrollable political violence may be – and the way dangerous the present times are for America.

Part of the complication, after all, is the contentious and confrontational nature of American politics. But Technology makes it harder for Americans to grasp sudden news developments.

Gone are the times when only a handful of media outlets informed broad sections of society in regards to the news after a radical fact-checking by skilled journalists.

In contrast, today anyone can “report” news online, provide supposed “analysis” of events, and mix facts, fiction, speculation, and opinions to suit a desired narrative or political perspective.

Then that perspective could also be presented as legitimate due to the creator's official position, wealth, variety of social media followers, or the eye of mainstream news organizations in search of to fill their news cycles.

And that's without even mentioning the convincing deepfake audio and video clips, whose lies and misrepresentations can sow much more confusion and distrust online and in society.

Today’s internet-based narratives also often include personal attacks, either directly or through inferences and suggestions – what experts call “stochastic terrorism” that may motivate people to violence. Political violence is the inevitable result – and has been for years, including attacks on US Representative Gabby Giffords, the husband of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, PaulThe Shooting practice for the 2017 Congressional Baseball Teamthe rebel of January 6, 2021, and now the attempted assassination of a former president who’s running for the White House again.

When bullets and conspiracies fly

As a Security and Internet researchers It was completely predictable for me that inside just a few minutes after the attack right-wing social media exploded with spontaneous response stories that blamed political rivals or the media, or suggested that the incident was the results of a sinister “inside job” by the federal government.

But it was not only extraordinary Internet users or distinguished Business magnates stokes these flames. Several Republicans made such statements from their official social media accounts. For example, lower than an hour after the attack, Congressman Mike Collins of Georgia accuses President Joe Biden of “incitement to assassinate” and told Biden “the orders sent.“ Ohio Senator JD Vance, now Trump's candidate for vpalso implied that Biden was responsible for the attack.

The bloodied former president stood up and delayed his evacuation by the key service for a photograph along with his fist raised before leaving the rally, and his campaign team released a Defiant donation email later that evening. This led to some Trump Critics suggest the incident was a “false flag” attack staged to realize a sympathetic national highlight. Others claimed the incident fit Trump’s continuous messaging to his supporters that he was a victim of persecution.

From a historical perspective, the previous right-wing president of Brazil is value mentioning. Jair Bolsonaro survived an assassination attempt in 2018 to turn out to be the country's next president in 2019.

It has long been known that Internet narratives, memes and content spread everywhere in the world like wildfire, long before the actual truth involves light. Unfortunately, these narratives, whether factual or fictional, may be picked up by traditional news organizations – and thus given a certain degree of legitimacy and spread further.

Many who see such messages, amplified by each social media and traditional news services, often imagine them – and a few may react with political violence or terrorism.

Can anything help?

Several strands of research show that there are methods by which extraordinary people will help break this dangerous cycle.

Immediately after the breaking news, it is crucial to do not forget that initial reports are sometimes incorrect, incomplete or inaccurate. Rather than being quick to repost things during rapidly developing news events, it's best to instantly avoid retweeting, reposting, or otherwise sharing online content. If information has been confirmed by multiple credible sources, ideally from across the political spectrum, then it's probably protected enough to imagine and share.

In the long term, it can profit us as a nation and a society to raised understand how technology and human inclinations interact. By teaching schoolchildren more media literacy and important considering skills, we are able to higher prepare future residents to tell apart fact from fiction in a posh world filled with conflicting information.

Another possible approach is to expand the teaching of civics and history in schools to present students the chance to learn from the past and, all of us hope, not repeat its mistakes.

Social media firms are also a part of the possible solution. In recent years, they’ve disbanded teams should monitor content and increase user trust in the data available on their platforms. Supreme Court rulings make it clear that these firms are free to actively monitor their platforms for disinformation, misinformation and conspiracy theories in the event that they so wish. But firms and alleged “Advocates of absolute freedom of expression“, including X owner Elon Musk, who refuse to remove controversial, although technically legal, web content from their platforms, potentially endangering public safety.

Traditional media outlets have a responsibility to tell the general public objectively, without giving voice to unverified conspiracy theories or misinformation. Ideally, qualified guests are invited on news programs who add useful facts and informed opinions to the general public discourse, somewhat than allowing speculation. And serious news anchors avoid the rhetorical strategy of “just ask questions“ or participation in “Ambidexterity“ as a method of bringing fringe theories – often from the Internet – into the news cycle, where they gain traction and circulation.

The public also plays a job.

Responsible residents could deal with electing officials and supporting parties that don’t accept conspiracy theories and private attacks as normal strategies. Voters could make it clear that they reward politicians who deal with policy achievements somewhat than on their media image and social media following.

This could, over time, send a message that the spectacle of contemporary political narratives on the Internet generally serves no useful purpose apart from to sow social discord and undermine the power of presidency agencies to act – and potentially result in political violence and terrorism.

Of course, these should not fast solutions. Many of those efforts would require time – maybe even years – money and courage.

Until then, perhaps Americans should once more remember the golden rule: Treat others as you desire to to be treated. Emphasizing facts within the news, integrity in public spaces, and media literacy in our schools also seem to be good approaches.