• by Sean Hargrave , Staff Writer, November 5, 2014

It can't only be me who has thought that as the telecoms regulator Ofcom and the British intelligence's listening service GCHQ call for the tech giants to fight terrorism, there could be a mutually beneficial option.

It is completely understandable that those in power would seek to use new forms of communication to watch out for people who might turn to terror, and it is also completely understandable that the general public will probably presume they already are. If Edward Snowden's claimed revelations are true, it would appear authorities are already at least attempting to intercept communications between suspected terrorists and potential recruits.

Let's leave that aside for a moment and focus on what really makes these publicly listed tech giants tick -- money! Let's consider how they get that money -- targeted advertising based on user behaviours.

Is there not a fit here? The authorities on either side of the Atlantic are saying that new social media channels are being used to spread propaganda and brainwash new recruits. So by definition, the authorities believe the people they want to prevent from becoming terrorists are connected to the major social media and video channels -- i.e., Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. 

So if we know how and where these messages are being presented and our commitment to free speech prevents us from a wholesale ban of specific terms or references, could we not just fight back? Could advertising not be the answer?

It may sound churlish, but hear me out. These social networks, combined with Google (probably more on search than Google+) have extensive data capabilities. They know who their users are, what organisations they like, what behaviours they show, which demographic group suits them, where they live, where they work, what they do, and where they go out. You get the picture? Nobody has a better idea of the activities of people on social networks than the social networks themselves.

Now, a committed terrorist in the field is unlikely to give away much through social media but if the authorities are looking at those people who are vulnerable to a rogue organisation's propaganda, these people are likely to be leading fairly ordinary lives. 

If a lookalike, "photo-fit"-type profile or group of core profiles could be built up, then the authorities could easily put together audiences of people who have liked or shared certain messages and perhaps joined specific organisations. Once this audience or groups of audiences have been identified, they can be reached.

Quite how this could be done would be open to negotiations. At one extreme, the authorities could simply divert advertising budget to seed social content, bringing the alternative message to potential recruits. There could be messages from people from similar backgrounds to potential recruits pointing out why they shouldn't listen to propaganda. In fact, there could be all manner of sponsored posts spread to the right people on the right channels at the right time.

There could even be an argument that the tech giants should allow these campaigns to be free of charge, or at a cost level. It would probably be a good time to point out that, certainly in the case of the UK, they do all they can to shift profit away from where revenue is generated so their tax burden is (somehow legally) minimised or even rendered a big fat zero. Might be time they put something back, even if it isn't dollars in the Fed or pounds in the Treasury?

Whatever the specifics might be, I'd ask the authorities the very simple question: If social is the problem, isn't it also the solution? If network owners hold the key to the data of whom you should be steering away from propaganda, wouldn't it make sense to work with them on highly targeted campaigns?

Touchy area, I know. But just a thought.