The Dangerous Side of Online Gaming

Last week I spoke at the Wharton Business School of the University of Pennsylvania’s “For the Win” conference. I focused on how extremist Internet users are increasingly adopting the marketing trend known as “gamification,” in order to fuel deeper and more dedicated user engagement. Knowledge @ Wharton, the online business journal at the Wharton School, wrote the following article about my presentation (read online here).  

The Dangerous Side of Online Gaming

Posted on August 17, 2011

Gamification has taken off as a phenomenon in U.S. business and social policy circles, but now it seems to have infiltrated the world of terrorism as well. One of the more unexpected uses of gamification — or the application of online game design techniques in non-game settings — to arise in discussions at Wharton’s recent “For the Win” conference is by Al Qaeda and Islamic extremist groups in their engagement with new members. Conference panelist Alix Levine, director of research at security consulting firm Cronus Global, analyzes Al Qaeda and Islamic extremist propaganda for a living. “I had never heard of gamification until February, but I’ve seen game mechanics in [Muslim extremist] propaganda, videos, lectures and websites,” she said.

For example, Levine noted that Inspire, the colorful English-language online magazine reportedly published by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, featured in its summer 2010 issue an article entitled, “How to Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom,” which detailed how to make a pipe bomb out of commonplace ingredients. Authors of the article laced game-like devices throughout the story, asking readers playful questions, such as, “How many ingredients can you find in your kitchen?” Several extremists arrested by Western authorities have been found in possession of this article, according to Levine.

Al Qaeda uses online game techniques, in particular, to draw new recruits into deeper engagement. By playing on recruits’ competitiveness and desire to build status and recognition within the extremist community, Al Qaeda websites allow “you to earn points for the quantity and quality of your posts,” Levine noted. “When you post and when people thank you for your post, you level up,” eventually earning promotions from peasant to VIP, for example. Users can then earn rewards for their status and accrued points, such as changing the color of their user names or gaining permission to use an avatar.

The ultimate reward is admission to a password-protected Al Qaeda website, where more serious terrorist actions are discussed and there is greater potential to turn a committed online jihadist into a real-world weapon of terror. To attain entry, users must prove they are committed to the movement by attaining high status within the starter website and obtaining the recommendation of a respected member of the community.

Almost every hard-line Islamic extremist site offers a point system to users, wrote Jarrett Brachman and Levine in an April 13 Foreign Policy article on the world of gamification among extremists. The article cited a Britain-based website called Salafi Media, which measures a user’s status by a “fundamentalism meter.” The higher a user is ranked on this meter, the more power he or she wields in the online community.

While for the most part, the Wharton conference focused on how to use gamification to increase engagement in legitimate business and other contexts, Levine appealed to attendees to “turn everything backwards” in their consideration of gamification in terrorism and to offer suggestions on how to disrupt engagement. Levine offered one example of the successful disengagement of a 22-year-old member of the Revolution Muslim Group in New York City. He had been admitted to a coveted password-protected site and was even made interim president of his group, but suddenly left the movement. The reason: He lost a very public theological debate with a higher-status colleague online. He was kicked off all forums and never reentered the community, because the process of rebuilding his online identity and status would be too painstaking.

For more coverage of the “For the Win” conference visit our special section.

Inspire #6: Making Jihad Fun

The long awaited sixth issue of Inspire Magazine, an Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) production, was released on hardline websites last night. This is the first issue released since Osama bin Laden was killed over two months ago. What took so long, you ask? Well, they explain the delay:

 “Things have been quite hectic over here. The country is falling apart and our brothers are busy picking up the pieces.” 

Hmmmm, sounds like a roundabout way of saying drone attacks.

All in all, this issue is the same as the previous ones. It includes essays/speeches written by Al Qaeda leaders, instructions on how to use an AK-47 and build an explosive (this time acetone peroxide) and encourages Westerners to join the jihadi movement.

Just like in previous issues, the sixth edition of Inspire uses humor to gain readership and encourage engagement among its readers. Inspire has truly become a gamified space - in other words game-like attributes are used in this clearly non-game environment to make light of the situations discussed in the magazine and engage with readers who may otherwise not be interested. For more information on how Al Qaeda uses online game theory to recruit the masses, see the article that Jarret Brachman and I wrote in Foreign Policy: The World of Holy Warcraft.

Below are a few excerpts from Inspire #6 using humor or making light of the situations they are discussing:

The Online Postings of Emerson Begolly

Emerson Begolly, a Pennsylvania man with an extensive extremist online history, was indicted today for soliciting extremists to engage in acts of terrorism. He was previously arrested and charged in January for allegedly assaulting two FBI agents and firearms-related charges.

The indictment outlines a number of Begolly’s problematic postings on Ansar al-Mujahideen English Forum (AMEF) in 2010, including his support for 9/11 and his encouragement of others to carry out violent acts of terror. The indictment, however, just merely touches on the hundreds of posts that Begolly posted online since at least 2005.

Begolly - called “The Nasheed Master” by the Al Shabaab-linked message board Al Qimmah - wrote and recorded a number of Islamic songs, which he and others posted on an array of extremist message boards. Some of his more radical songs include “When the Jew’s Blood Reds my Knife, then my Life is Free from Strife” and another nasheed written as a tribute to Taimour Abdulwahab, the Iraqi who carried out a suicide attack in Sweden in December 2010. 

In addition to his anasheed, Begolly expressed support for an array of gruesome terrorist attacks, including the November 2009 Fort Hood attack.

While it may seem shocking that this young American-born Penn State student could produce such gruesome posts, comments and songs, the reality is that Begolly is just one of almost 200 Americans arrested and charged for their involvement in this type of terrorist activity.

Please feel free to contact me for an archive of Begolly's anasheed, additional information on Begolly, or other Americans involved in terrorist-related activities.

Google’s Response to Keeping Extremism out of Social Media

Over the past couple of months, Google’s role in countering violent extremism has been the topic of much debate. On the one hand, Google has taken the initiative to help in this endeavor by organization a Summit Against Violent Extremism (which I attended, see my review of the conference here).  On the other hand, YouTube (owned by Google) contains hundreds of extremist and terrorist videos. In addition, other Google owned subsidiaries, like Blogger, also contain extremist content. 

Below is Google’s response to Senator Joseph Lieberman’s questions: 

Google’s Summit Against Violent Extremism

**See below for comment by Charles Cameron**

Last week I joined Google, the Council on Foreign Relations and Tribeca Film Festival as an invited delegate at their Summit Against Violent Extremism (SAVE). The delegates consisted of 80 former extremists (right wing, gang, Islamist etc.), a number of survivors, as well as professors, leaders of non-profits and other analysts in the field. 

In the aftermath of the conference there have been many critics, but not many enthusiasts. Some of the critiques include: 

-- It is impossible to understand extremism when you look at each different type of extremist ideology as a whole.

-- Google proposes using technology to counter extremism, but technology also facilitates the spread of extremist ideologies.

-- The government and academic programs have been working to solve this problem for years, so how can Google now take on this initiative and expect to succeed?

I agree, but.... 

Nobody else has taken on this initiative in this way. As somebody who attended the summit, I can say first hand that the emotions and enthusiasm at the conference were powerful enough to overcome many of the obstacles. Former extremists across the spectrum identified with each other in a way I never thought possible - one highlight of the conference was when a former gang member from LA taught a former Muslim extremist a new handshake. 

Throughout the conference, delegates had breakout sessions where we were tasked with coming up with a new idea to help combat violent extremism. At the end of the conference, delegates voted on their favorite idea. While the ideas were enlightening, what struck me was the excitement and enthusiasm in the room during the vote. Leaders of groups were parading around explaining their ideas with such genuine passion that it was impossible to be in this room and not be inspired by Google’s effort. 

Instead of critiquing Google’s effort, it will be more productive and valuable to  work in unison with Google on their mission to “initiate a global conversation.” There is no real downfall to having another avenue at which to approach this problem, and while I understand some of the pessimism surrounding the debate, I hope that more people will join in on the conversation in a meaningful and (gasp) positive way. We all have the same end goal, so maybe it’s time to stop critiquing each other and start working together.

Comment by Charles Cameron:

I'm comparing Will McCants' response to the Google Ideas conference on FP [http://goo.gl/lVIO2] with yours, and I'm glad you wrote as you did. 

McCants – whose work I generally admire -- opens his comments by quoting Jared Cohen to the effect that the purpose of the conference was to "initiate a global conversation". McCants then more or less dismisses the conference itself a couple paragraphs later with the words "If these are indeed the conclusions of the conference, Google Ideas needs more thinking and less doing in its approach". 

Conclusions? How does he get so quickly from "initiate" to "conclusions"?

Okay, we all know that a conference can lead to a volume of proceedings read mostly by the authors themselves and a few aspiring students eager to follow-my-leader and dead end there – but this conference was very clearly intended to be the start of something, not the wrap-up. 

So your comment, "Instead of critiquing Google’s effort, it will be more productive and valuable to work in unison with Google on their mission to 'initiate a global conversation'" seemed to me to bring us back to the actual intent Google had announced for the conference, and you reinforce that when you write, "I hope that more people will join in on the conversation in a meaningful and (gasp) positive way."

My questions are: how and where do we do this?

There will have been contacts made at the conference that will lead to an exchange of emails, no doubt – but that's not a global conversation.

Here are some of the problems I foresee:

(a) siloing: the conversation limiting itself to a few constituences, each of which talks mainly among its own members, leading to (b) group think: in which the widely assumed gets even more firmly entrenched as "wisdom", with (c) secrecy: meaning that potentially relevant information is unavailable to some or all participants, all of which add up to (d) blind spots: topics and approaches that still don't get the attention and exploration they deserve.

The solutions would need to include:

(a) networked diversity: by which I mean a structured means of getting the unpopular or minority opinion front and center (compare business brainstorming in which a facilitator ensures even the "quiet ones" get heard, and that even poor ideas are expressed without critique until a later, evaluative stage), (b) contrariety: meaning that whatever ideas are "easily dismissed" get special attention, with (c) transparency: meaning that whatever could be redacted and made partially available is made available, not (as in US Govt "open source" material, closely held), so that (d) oddballs and outriders get to participate…

Jami Miscik who was Deputy Director for Intelligence at the time, caught my attention when she said in 2004, "Embrace the maverick". Oddballs aka mavericks make the best contrarians, because they start from different premises / different assumption bases. Miscik accordingly invited science fiction and film writers to interact with her analysts at CIA, and found that when they did, they produced 80% already known ideas, 10% chaff, and 10% new and "valid" scenarios (http://goo.gl/qzQXq). But even then, "science fiction and screen writers" is a box...

Cross-fertilization, questioning of assumptions, passion, reverie, visualization, scenario planning, play – the number of strategies that could be employed to improve the chances of a successful new insight emerging are many and various – unkempt artists probably know some of them better than suits with high IQs and clearances, and Google clearly knows this, too…

But where?

I mean, what Google+ circles do any of us join to join this global conversation? What twitter hashtag brings us together under one roof? When's the follow up in my neck of the woods, or yours? 

What's the method for getting the conversation widespread, well-informed – and scaleable, so the best of the grass roots and local ideas can find their way to the influential and informed, and the best insights of the influential and informed can percolate through to the grass roots and local?

Lastly, I'd like to thank Google for getting a dialog going between those with a range of subjective experiences of radicalization, and those whose job it is to understand and thus be able to interdict it. Demonization never got the situation in Northern Ireland anywhere near peace – listening did.

And thank you too, Alix, for your own contribution. Let's move the conversation onwards.

Big Week for Al Shabaab News

This week the FBI confirmed the identity of one of the suicide bombers in the May 30 suicide attack in Somalia as St. Paul resident Farah Mohamed Beledi (pictured right). Soon after the attack, Al Shabaab identified the suicide bomber as Abdullahi Ahmed, another Somali-American from Minneapolis. The FBI has yet to announce whether the second suicide bomber is in fact Ahmed.

On the same day that Beledi was identified as one of the suicide bombers, another Somali-American was arrested and charged with providing material support to Al Shabaab. Ahmed Hussein Mahamud, 26, of Westerville, Ohio, allegedly conspired with others to provide money and personnel to the terrorist group. He will be transferred to Minneapolis to face trial, where he was indicted earlier this week. 

Beledi and Mahamud are just two of at least 34 people charged in the U.S. in the past few years in connection with Al Shabaab. Twenty-one of these individuals are in U.S. custody, while 13 others are at large or believed to be dead. In addition to those officially charged on terror offenses, at least 6 others are believed to have been killed while fighting with Al Shabaab, including Shirwa Ahmed, the first known American suicide bomber. 

Reports are coming out today that a female Al Shabaab fighter has carried out a suicide attack on the Somali

Minister of Interior’s house, injuring him. While her identity has not yet been confirmed, there are three other women charged on terror offenses linked to Al Shabaab who have been arrested in the U.S. These three women - Nima Ali Yusuf, Amina Farah Ali and Hawo Mohamed Hassan - have all be charged with aiding Al Shabaab.

While recent events have forced us to focus more on AQ Central, AQAP, TTP and LeT -- this week alone proves that we have to continue to be concerned about Al Shabaab. 

Hizb ut-Tahrir America Keeps on Trucking

Despite canceling their second annual Khilafah conference last summer because they lost their venue,  Hizb ut-Tahrir America - the US-based sect of a global Caliphatist movement - has announced that

they will be holding their third annual Khilafah conference at the end of this month in Chicago. Learning their lesson from the previous year, the venue location is still TBA.

In addition to posting the conference announcement on their website, HT also announced the conference on Facebook. HT is very active on mainstream social networking sites, as are many of its members.

At their 2009 conference, HT speakers advocated for replacing the US constitution with shari’a law and implementing an Islamic Caliphate in the US.  One speaker urged the audience to fight for Islamic law in the US “unless and until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt.” 

While HT claims that they advocate a non-violent ideology, the group has a history of encouraging jihad “to fight the enemy and repel them.” HT also frequently urges for Muslims to “blow Israel off the map” and “fight the Jews.” So far, HT in America has not endorsed violence publicly. 

Stay tuned for more details about the upcoming event. In addition - if you’d like more information about some of the US-based individuals involved in HT in America, please contact me.