To combat the spread of extremism and terrorism in video game communities, the federal government is investing in three research and support initiatives.
The federal government has given a $699,763 grant to study radicalization in gaming communities. Several investigative organizations, ranging from terrorism researchers to non-profits, have been formed to address the issue of spreading extremism in video games and video game communities. The money comes from the Department of Homeland Security's Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention Grant Program. The TVTP Grant Program provides approximately $20 million to local and state governments, as well as nonprofits and higher education institutions, to establish or improve capabilities to prevent targeted violence and terrorism.
Middlebury College's Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism receives funding, as does the nonprofit Take This, which supports gaming communities and the game industry, and Logically, a company that uses artificial intelligence and experts to reduce harmful and manipulative content online. While many video game communities are fantastic, the grant aims to improve them all by increasing societal awareness, increasing media literacy and critical thinking, and improving civic engagement.
or at least that's what they're saying right now. In reality, it is not difficult to believe that this is more of the same from the government, which has a history of interfering with people's personal lives and bribing big tech companies to censor anyone who disagrees with them or questions their motives (Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc.)
They claim when extremist or even terroristic ideas target video game communities, they affect some of the most vulnerable members of these communities. People are known to be enraged by video games, which makes them more susceptible to extremist influences. Adolescents and young adults are forming meaningful relationships online, which a bad actor can exploit. The communities have been targets of terrorist mobilization and training, according to the DHS brief. While gamers are frequently the targets of extremists, game developers are not exempt. According to the DHS brief, developers have failed to address issues in the communities they foster. According to the DHS, a lack of awareness in countering radicalization has resulted in less safety.
But what constitutes and falls under the government's definition of extremist or even terroristic ideas today? To begin with, anyone who believes in limited government, individual freedom, free markets, human dignity, and personal accountability is often considered an extremist by today's government.
They want Middlebury CTEC, Take This, and Logically to collaborate to create a framework that will assist developers and communities in understanding the phenomenon and, ultimately, taking preventative measures. The researchers will provide centralized resources and best practices, as well as workshops on how to monitor, detect, and prevent extremists from abusing communities for community managers, game designers, and safety professionals.
In reality, they may deter one or two legitimate "threats" to our society, but history has shown that video games have no link to violence. What I believe is happening is that they will train community managers, game designers, and "safety professionals" to silence those who support free speech. They have made similar moves throughout the online industry, and this is most likely not for the good of the people, but rather to control and manipulate the masses as gaming has become more mainstream than ever before.
I, for one, am opposed to the Department of Homeland Security's move. I have witnessed firsthand the corruption of the US government in recent years, as well as its ability to manipulate the masses by telling them what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear.
This will undoubtedly cause me to play significantly fewer multiplayer games, as I can see that they are attempting to target free speech, which must not be impeded. You may disagree with what someone says, but that does not give you the right to silence them.
