The 1996 Dunblane massacre and the protests that followed were Textbook example of how an act of terrorism mobilized a nation to demand effective gun control.

The atrocity, in which 16 children and a teacher were killed, triggered a wave of nationwide backlash, and within weeks 750,000 people had signed a petition calling for legal reform. Within a year and a half, new laws were in place making it illegal to own handguns.

Nearly three decades after the horrific violence at a Southport dance studio, it has provoked a starkly different response. It shocked many in the UK this week, but experts on domestic extremism, particularly those who look at the intersection of violence and technology, say it’s all too common — and, in this new age of algorithmic rage, sadly inevitable.

“Radicalization has always happened, but before, leaders were the bridge-builders that brought people together,” said Maria Ressa, a Filipino journalist and sharp-tongued technology critic who won the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize. “That’s no longer possible, because what once radicalized extremists and terrorists now radicalizes the general public, because that’s how the information ecosystem is designed.”

For Ressa, all of the violence that erupted on the streets of Southport, and then in towns across the country, fuelled by wild rumours and anti-immigrant rhetoric on social media, felt all too familiar. “Propaganda has always been there, violence has always been there, it’s social media that has made violence mainstream. [The US Capitol attack on] January 6th is a perfect example. Without social media to bring people together, isolate them, and incite them even more, people would never have been able to find each other.”

The biggest difference between the Dunblane massacre in 1996 and today is that the way we communicate has fundamentally changed. In our instant information environment, informed by algorithms that spread the most shocking, outrageous or emotional comments, social media is designed to do the exact opposite of bringing unity: it has become an engine of polarization.

“It seemed like it was just a matter of time before something like this happened in the UK,” says Julia Ebner, head of the Violent Extremism Lab at the Oxford University Centre for Social Cohesion Research. “This alternative information ecosystem is fuelling these narratives. We saw that in the Chemnitz riots in Germany in 2018, which reminded me strongly of that. And [it] The January 6th riots occurred in the United States.

“You see this chain reaction with these alternative news channels. Misinformation can spread very quickly and mobilize people into the streets. And then, of course, people tend to turn to violence because it amplifies anger and deep emotions. And then it travels from these alternative media to X and mainstream social media platforms.”

This “alternative information ecosystem” includes platforms like Telegram, BitTortoise, Parler and Gab, and often operates unseen behind the scenes of mainstream and social media. It has proven to be a breeding ground for the far-right, conspiracy theories and extremist ideology that has collided this week and mobilized people into the streets.

“Politicians need to stop using the phrase ‘the real world’ instead of ‘the online world,'” Ressa said. “How many times do I have to say it? It’s the same old thing.”

For Jacob Davey, director of counter-hate policy and research at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue in London, it was a “catastrophe”: Recent mass protests in the UK have emboldened the far-right, with far-right figures like Tommy Robinson being “replatformed” on X, while measures to curb hate are being rolled back.

The problem is that even though academics, researchers and policymakers are increasingly understanding the issue, very little is being done to solve it.

“And every year that goes by without this issue being addressed and without real legislation on social media, it’s going to get significantly worse,” Ressa said. “And [Soviet leader] Yuri Andropov said: Design Information [disinformation] “It’s like cocaine. Once or twice it’s okay, but if you take it all the time it becomes addictive. It changes you as a person.”

However, while UK authorities are aware of these threats in theory, in 2021 MI5 Director Ken McCallumsaid far-right extremism was the biggest domestic terrorism threat facing the UK, but the underlying technical problems remain unresolved.

It’s seven years since the FBI and US Congress launched an investigation into the weaponisation of social media by the Russian government, and while much of the UK’s right-wing media has ignored or mocked the investigation, Daily Mail This week, a shocking headline was published about one suspicious account on X. The account may be based in Russia and may be spreading false information, but this may only be part of the picture.

And there is still little recognition that what we are witnessing is part of a global phenomenon — a rise in populism and authoritarianism underpinned by deeper structural changes in communication — or, according to Ebner, the extent to which the parallels with what is happening in other countries run deep.

“The rise of far-right politics is very similar across the world and in different countries. No other movement has been able to amplify their ideology in the same way. The far-right is tapping into really powerful emotions in terms of algorithmically powerful emotions: anger, indignation, fear, surprise.”

“And really what we’re seeing is a sense of collective learning within far-right communities in many different countries. And a lot of it has to do with building these alternative information ecosystems and using them to be able to react or respond to something immediately.”

The question is, what will Keir Starmer do? Ebner points out that this is no longer a problem in dark corners of the internet. Politicians are also part of the radicalised population. “They are now saying things they would not have said before, they are blowing dog whistles to the far right, they are playing with conspiracy theories that were once promoted by far-right extremists.”

And human rights groups such as Big Brother Watch fear that some of Starmer’s solutions – including a pledge to increase facial recognition systems – could lead to further harm from the technology.

Ravi Naik, of AWO, a law firm specialising in cases against technology companies, said there were a number of steps that could be taken, including the Information Commissioner’s Office enforcing data restrictions and police action against incitement to violence.

“But these actions are reactive,” Naik said. “The problem is too big to be addressed at the whim of a new prime minister. It is a deep-rooted issue of power, and it cannot be solved in the middle of a crisis or by impulsive reactions. We need a real adult conversation about digital technology and the future we all want.”