Angry Enough to Riot: An Analysis of In-Group Membership, Misinformation, and Violent Rhetoric on TheDonald.win Between Election Day and Inauguration

Abstract

This study was a mixed-method quantitative and qualitative analysis that analyzed content posted to TheDonald.win, a web forum popular with extreme supporters of Donald Trump. The purpose of this study was to expand knowledge of the dynamics of radicalized online spaces, especially the role that shifting In-Group and Out-Group membership plays in fomenting increased levels of observably radicalized language. The study examined the top-20 posts on the website every day between when the 2020 US presidential election was called and the presidential inauguration in January 2021. The study found that In-Group membership was maintained only by expressing open, public support of Trump’s claims of election fraud, that misinformation was rampant on the site but was often vague in its linguistic form, and that posters to TheDonald.win saw their own In-Group as the victims of violence more often than they used violent rhetoric against members of the Out-Group.

Reframing leadership for a more just society

“…For example, social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, have provided a tool for extremist and conspiracy theorists to spread misinformation (Wang et al., 2019). Trump also used social media to encourage his armed supporters, many of whom were threatening to commit acts of violence against public officials and sought to interfere with the certification of legitimate election results, to march on the U.S. capitol building on January 6, 2021 (Riley, 2022), which finally led Facebook and Twitter to ban him from their platforms (though Elon Musk reversed Twitter's ban following his acquisition of the company; Mac & Browning, 2022). These events have cast national spotlight on conversations about the moral responsibility that leaders of technologies have to the public.…”

“…Moreover, throughout Trump's campaign and presidential term, he and his allies continued to develop a sophisticated machine of misinformation, fueling rejection of valid data and evidence among a significant segment of the U.S. populace (Riley, 2022). This widespread misinformation is tied to large numbers of people rejecting public health mandates in ways that exacerbated the COVID‐19 crisis (Wang et al., 2022).…”

“…This widespread misinformation is tied to large numbers of people rejecting public health mandates in ways that exacerbated the COVID‐19 crisis (Wang et al., 2022). These trends also led to his followers’ denial of Biden's victory in the 2020 U.S. presidential race, creation of false narratives of a stolen election, efforts to steal the election in the months following its conclusion, and a hostile takeover of the U.S. Capitol on January 6th of 2021 in protest of the results (Riley, 2022).…”

When Birds of a Feather Instagram Together: Debating the Image of Islam in Echo Chambers and Through Trench Warfare on Social Media

“…Also, a constant fear of "White safety" at the hand of radical Islamic terrorism, or Islam at large, has been specifically identified in right-wing hashtag groups online (Eddington, 2018). One danger that these types of echo chambers pose is the fact that they are able to normalize cyber hate speech (Riley, 2022) against a perceived "out-group" (Harel et al, 2020). In addition, negative labeling of refugees or religious minorities (Lee & Nerghes, 2018) and the creation of individual definitions of terms such as "jihad" and "islamist" and can thus vilify the entire religion based on this new definition (Aguilera-Carnerero & Azeez, 2016).…”

Psychological Research on Misinformation

“…(4) Even if the direct impacts of misinformation on behaviors are difficult to measure or small, this does not mean they are by definition practically insignificant. For example, it seems difficult to argue that election-related misinformation had no causal effect on the 2021 US Capitol riots (Riley, 2022). People who are misinformed and therefore deny medical treatment in favor of non-evidence-based pathways have increased mortality (for discussion, see MacFarlane et al, 2020; Peterson et al, 2020).…”