A Diachronic Cross-Platforms Analysis of Violent Extremist Language in the Incel Online Ecosystem
Open accessAbstract
The emergence and growth of incel subculture online has triggered a considerable body of research to date, most of which analyzing its worldview or mapping its position and connections within the broader manosphere. While this research has considerably enhanced our understanding of the incel phenomenon, it tends to offer a somewhat static, one-dimensional portrayal of what is—like all online subcultures and communities—a highly dynamic and multi-layered environment. Consequently, we lack sufficiently nuanced answers to what is arguably a critical question for law enforcement and academics alike: is this a violent extremist ideology? Using a uniquely extensive corpus covering a range of online spaces constitutive of the incelosphere spanning several years, we analyze the evolution of incel language across both time and platforms. Specifically, we test whether this language has grown more extreme over time as online spaces shutdown and others emerged. Our findings demonstrate that, while levels of violent extremist language do vary across the incelosphere, they have steadily increased in the main online spaces over the past 6 years. Further, we demonstrate that, while activity on these online spaces is responsive to offline events, the impact of these on violent extremist ideation is not uniform.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 69
- Authors
- Baele, S., Brace, L., & Ging, D.
- Affiliations
- Department of Social and Political Sciences, Philosophy, and Anthropology, Centre for Advanced International Studies (CAIS), University of Exeter, UK
- University of Exeter (GB)
- Dublin City University (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Brace, Lewys
- Venue
- Terrorism and Political Violence
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-01-24
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 382-405
- ISSN
- 0954-6553 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-1836
- OpenAlex
- W4319829690
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 29.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Terrorism and Political Violence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/V002775/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Keywords
- manosphere, online subcultures, cross-platform analysis, diachronic analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review