The British and French governments have taken a strong stance against 'extremist content' online when addressing their approach to tackling extremism.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
We cannot hope to effectively counter extremism if we just focus on schools, universities and prisons: we need to take this online as well.
It's not mere extremism that makes folks at the fringes so troubling; it's extremism wedded to false beliefs. Humans have long been dupes, easily gulled by rumors and flat-out lies.
Non-violent extremism is essentially the increase of intolerant and bigoted demands made by groups seeking to dominate society.
Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all.
Violent extremism is going viral, but our response to it is moving at bureaucratic, sluggish speed.
Our work in Britain suggests that radicalization is driven by an ideology which claims that Muslims around the world are being oppressed and - and this is the key bit of the argument - which then legitimizes violence in their supposed defense.
Open debate is our strongest tool in standing up to extremism. The far more dangerous avenue is to force extremist ideas underground, where they can fester without competition.
I agree that it is not just the extremists who harbor bad thoughts or engage in bad acts, but they are usually the source of the polarization and try to keep education and communication of the main stream from moving forward.
The government wants to be able to attack extremism and hatred wherever it occurs.
Extremists think 'communication' means agreeing with them.
No opposing quotes found.