Inadvertently promoting the far right

A few weeks ago I saw a rather curious thread on Twitter. A journalist, who I otherwise rather like and would rather not name, wanted to introduce American readers to Katie Hopkins. He attached a series of links to her speeches, explaining why these showed how dangerous she was, and why American viewers should be wary of her. This is, of course, a profoundly stupid approach to the far right. Because sites like Twitter and Youtube use algorithms which push content based on views, this approach gives the far right more prominence by generating additional traffic on their videos and social media accounts. As in the famous Mitchell and Webb sketch, it doesn't matter if the viewers love the content or hate it (or are enjoying it ironically). The numbers show up just the same.

The additional prominence this gives to the far right almost certainly outweighs any benefit from the refutations or warnings that originally generated it. Yet an alarming proportion of content on social and broadcast media is doing precisely that. The problem here is both a supply and a demand side one. There is undoubtedly an enormous appetite for content involving TV and radio debates with the far right, and with social media content aimed at refuting or gazing in horror at its messages. Such content is entertaining, and, in a polarised political environment, often very satisfying. I myself admit that one of the most satisfying videos I have watched on Youtube is of Tony Blair angrily denouncing Nigel Farage in front of the European Parliament. It's a great form of vicarious wish fulfilment. 

This generates incentives for both broadcasters and individuals to produce such content. Why else would BBC Question Time invite Farage on so often? Those in charge of such decisions can easily offer justifications by reference to public interest, balance, or the value of open debate, but the arguments themselves do not add up.  Something similar is going on with individuals on social media. Posts which offer horrified denunciations or refutations of far right users and their material get wide circulation. They generate likes, clicks and prominence for the individual who decided to post them. An aspiring (or even established) journalist has a huge incentive to post this kind of material as a way of promoting themselves. This is a serious market failure.                                                                                

People can easily justify their decision to do so to themselves. What is essentially about self promotion can easily be narrated as a story of making a moral stand and speaking out against the far right. And individuals are apt to think that self promotion is itself a moral goal. It is easy to imagine that your own prominence and success will ultimately allow you to serve the greater good as you will be better placed to use your own talents.                                                                                   

This is essentially a collective action problem. Few liberals or left wingers actually want to live in a world where Katie Hopkins and Nigel Farage have a significant impact on public life. But the individual gains accrued by promoting their material, be they in terms of extra following, or the satisfaction righteous indignation, seem more real and significant than a tiny bit of extra prominence their own work gives to the far right. But there is so much material out there attacking the far right that any more gives almost no additional social benefit. And the game of who gets to be among the most prominent who debate and condemn the far right is largely zero sum. The result is rather tragic.