The central proposition
A pathway lens, not a universal theory of violence
AIR proposes that digitally curated content can contribute to a cycle in which a person or bounded group encounters, repeatedly engages with and reinforces a narrowing worldview before mobilisation. The pathway may be self-directed, socially reinforced, externally encouraged or some combination of these. External orchestration is therefore possible, but it is not required for an AIR classification.
The framework is applied across terroristic attacks, thwarted terrorist plots and CIVM incidents. It asks what the reliable public record documents about online involvement. It does not assume that using the internet, holding a grievance or encountering polarising material is sufficient to explain an offence.
The cycle may arrest, reverse or recur. Most people exposed to contentious or extreme material do not mobilise to coercion or violence, and the current data cannot estimate an individual probability of doing so.
Conceptual model
Curation, immersion, reinforcement and mobilisation
The four stages organise evidence and research questions. They are not a clinical sequence, a diagnostic instrument or a claim that each case passes through every stage.
- Proposed stage 1
Curation
Content is encountered through deliberate choice, social sharing and platform ranking. AIR asks what the case record documents; it does not assume that ranking narrowed exposure.
- Proposed stage 2
Immersion
Sustained engagement, repetition and digital-subculture participation may be recorded. This is behavioural evidence, not a claim about a person’s neurological state.
- Proposed stage 3
Reinforcement
Sources may document increasing certainty, identity fusion, moral disengagement or out-group hostility. The mechanism remains a hypothesis unless case evidence supports it.
- Proposed stage 4
Mobilisation
Action may range from qualifying CIVM conduct to a thwarted plot or terroristic attack. Most exposure does not lead to mobilisation, and no stage is inevitable.
Read the four stages in text
Curation concerns the selection and surfacing of content, including emotionally charged and identity-affirming material. Immersion concerns sustained engagement, repetition and possible digital-subculture adoption. Reinforcement concerns a possible hardening of beliefs, moral disengagement or reduced willingness to revise them. Mobilisation concerns action, which may range from coercive or rights-infringing conduct to violent extremism or terrorism. A case need not display every stage, and stages may overlap.
Conduct boundary
Protected participation is not CIVM
The three-tier framework separates lawful democratic engagement from qualifying coercive or violent conduct. It is designed to prevent the mere presence of a controversial ideology, protest movement or political identity from becoming an incident classification.
Lawful participation
Protected expression, assembly, advocacy, protest and democratic engagement remain outside the dataset, however disruptive, unpopular or morally contested.
CIVM incident
Bounded coercive, seriously rights-infringing or violent ideological mobilisation that does not meet the project’s operational terrorism threshold.
Terroristic attack or thwarted plot
Executed or disrupted conduct meeting the published project test for terrorism. Legal stage and statutory treatment remain separately recorded.
How the tier boundary is applied
A bounded incident requires source-supported conduct. Lawful protest, advocacy and democratic participation remain outside CIVM. For protest-related cases, the dataset represents identified, arrested, charged, convicted or otherwise specifically documented participants where the sources permit; it does not classify the wider lawful crowd as offenders.
Incident categories and pathway evidence
Terrorism, thwarted plots and CIVM answer different questions
Terroristic attack
An executed incident coded under the project’s operational terrorism rule. The conduct and purpose must be supported by the available public record, including a function of intimidation or coercion beyond the immediate victims. Legal findings and official treatment are recorded, but the project label is not a substitute for a court determination.
Thwarted terrorist plot
Preparatory or attempted conduct disrupted before the intended attack was completed. Allegations, charges, convictions and final outcomes are kept distinct, and disruption does not prove every alleged feature of a plan.
CIVM incident
Coercive, rights-infringing or violent ideological mobilisation that does not meet the project’s terrorism threshold. The minimum screen requires qualifying conduct, an ideological or identity-related mobilisation context, a bounded actor or group and documented online activity or online-enabled group mobilisation.
AIR evidence level
The project’s assessment of documented algorithmic, social-media or online involvement. AIR is not a fourth incident category. A terroristic attack, thwarted plot or CIVM incident can each have Nil, Lower, Moderate, Higher or Unknown / Not Established pathway evidence.
Primary incident categories are mutually exclusive in published totals. Separate overlap fields may record analytically relevant features across the terrorism–CIVM boundary; those fields do not change the primary counting category.
Operational coding rubric
Four levels of documented AIR evidence
The levels are an unvalidated proxy for the strength and character of publicly documented digital-pathway involvement. They combine evidence that may concern exposure, communication, participation, production or offence-related dissemination. They are expert exploratory classifications, not direct measures of algorithmic exposure, psychological immersion or causal effect.
- Nil
No qualifying algorithmic or social-media immersion under the project rule. This includes every pre-2005 incident, as well as source-supported offline pathways. Operational internet, email or coded communication alone does not automatically establish immersion.
- Lower
Limited or incidental case-specific online involvement, such as isolated browsing, communication or contact, without evidence of sustained immersion.
- Moderate
Substantive online context, including videos, propaganda, chat groups or source-supported group-level online organisation, without case-specific evidence of sustained active participation.
- Higher
Case-specific sustained or active online involvement, including content production, recruitment, group administration, livestreaming or documented self-directed online immersion. A manifesto, post or livestream establishes digital activity; its timing and content must be assessed before it is interpreted as evidence of a prior immersion pathway.
Unknown / Not Established remains visible when the reviewed public record does not support a defensible level. A completed review does not turn an undisclosed pathway into a known fact.
Higher does not mean more violent, more culpable or more dangerous. Nil does not mean benign. The label refers only to the documented online pathway evidence under this rubric.
Temporal eligibility
The conservative pre-2005 Nil rule
Every incident before 1 January 2005 is coded Nil AIR. Incidents from 2005 onwards are eligible for evidence-based Lower, Moderate or Higher coding, but the date alone supplies no evidence of online influence.
The boundary is a project rule chosen to avoid projecting the later social-media environment backwards. It does not claim that all platforms adopted personalised recommendation systems at the same moment. Platform feeds and recommendation systems developed at different times, while smartphone and short-form-video adoption followed different national and age patterns. Case-specific evidence remains necessary throughout the eligible period.
Authoritative markers used to contextualise the eras
The temporal layer uses dated milestones as contextual markers rather than causal breakpoints. Primary examples include Facebook’s 2006 News Feed documentation, Apple’s 2007 iPhone launch notice, YouTube’s 2012 recommendation-system explanation and TikTok’s 2018 global-app announcement. These sources date product changes; they do not establish effects on violence.
Interpretive discipline
Four statement types keep findings and hypotheses separate
A directly represented value, case characteristic or reproducible descriptive result from a named release.
A measured relationship between variables with its sample, coverage and method disclosed. Association is not causation.
A theory-led or evidence-informed proposition that requires further testing and could be revised or rejected.
A statement about measurement, sources, legal context, reporting practice or the socio-technical environment that affects interpretation.
These labels apply to fixed AIR Programme Insights as well as narrative research outputs. Null, contradictory and complicating results belong in the record alongside supportive findings.
Limits of inference
What the framework does not establish
- No individual causal proof. A documented online pathway does not establish that an algorithm, platform or item of content caused the incident.
- No demographic risk inference. Religion, migration, citizenship, sex, gender, age and other descriptors are not AIR indicators and cannot be used to infer dangerousness or population propensity.
- No diagnosis. AIR is not a clinical assessment, mental-health classification or screening instrument.
- No exposure threshold. Ordinary internet use, screen time or platform membership does not by itself establish Lower, Moderate or Higher AIR.
- No inevitability. The cycle is non-linear and may arrest or reverse; lawful dissent is not treated as an early stage of violence.
- No ecological shortcut. Country-year social-context measures describe national conditions, not what an actor saw, believed or experienced.