The Cult of the Chronically Online

Note: this article has been written over the course of a few weeks.

"Chronically online" describes individuals who spend a substantial portion of their daily lives engaged with digital platforms. This constant connectivity is not merely a habit but often defines their social, cultural, and informational landscapes. These individuals are deeply immersed in internet culture, consuming and generating content across various platforms, and frequently engaging with online communities.

Being chronically online enables individuals to shape and be shaped by the fast-moving trends of digital culture, often positioning them as early adopters or trendsetters who influence online discourse and, by extension, broader cultural narratives. However, this high level of engagement can also lead to the formation of echo chambers, where exposure is primarily limited to like-minded perspectives. Social media algorithms reinforce these views by prioritising content that aligns with a user's existing beliefs, fostering ideological enclaves in which extreme or niche ideologies, such as radical feminism or Red Pill ideology, can flourish. (James, 2024)

This insular digital environment contributes to political and social polarisation, as the constant flow of information and intense participation in online debates deepen ideological entrenchment. As a result, digital spaces become battlegrounds for progressive and reactionary movements, each claiming a platform to amplify their perspectives. At the same time, these online environments provide a strong sense of identity and community, offering validation and social belonging.

While this can be empowering, it can also lead to the internalisation of extreme beliefs and an overreliance on virtual affirmation. Ultimately, being chronically online encapsulates a modern way of living where digital interactions significantly shape personal identity, social dynamics, and cultural evolution, influencing both individual worldviews and collective discourse.

The Framework: Social Identity Theory

Online communities play a crucial role in shaping ideological beliefs, serving as both incubators and accelerators for emerging socio-political movements. Digital radicalisation theories provide insights into how individuals adopt and reinforce extreme viewpoints, often through constant exposure to highly curated and emotionally charged content. The internet, and particularly social media platforms, has revolutionised the way ideologies are disseminated, allowing for rapid spread and deep entrenchment of beliefs that might otherwise remain marginal. Within this digital landscape, individuals not only consume content but also actively participate in discussions, debates, and ideological reaffirmation, which further solidifies their perspectives.

One significant concept in this process is echo chambers, where individuals are predominantly exposed to like-minded perspectives, limiting their engagement with dissenting opinions. Social media platforms facilitate these insular environments by encouraging interactions that favour agreement and validation over critique and nuance. This narrowing of discourse fosters a reinforcing loop of ideological homogeneity, wherein users become increasingly insulated from alternative viewpoints. The psychological impact of such environments is well-documented, as cognitive biases—such as confirmation bias and groupthink—reinforce individuals' commitment to their in-group ideologies.

Compounding this effect is algorithmic reinforcement, a phenomenon in which social media algorithms prioritise and recommend content based on users’ previous interactions, effectively shaping their information landscape. These algorithms, designed to maximise engagement, amplify content that elicits strong emotional reactions: often outrage, fear, or moral righteousness, thereby escalating ideological divisions. Platforms such as YouTube, Twitter (X), TikTok, and Reddit have been shown to facilitate the radicalisation of users by leading them progressively towards more extreme content. Research on algorithmic bias suggests that such mechanisms contribute not only to ideological entrenchment but also to the creation of distinct online subcultures that define themselves in opposition to perceived ideological adversaries.

Social Identity Theory further explains how digital spaces contribute to ideological formation by highlighting the role of group membership in shaping individual self-concept (McLeod, 2023). Online communities provide a strong sense of belonging, particularly for individuals who may feel alienated from mainstream societal narratives. Within these digital enclaves, users develop in-group loyalty, reinforcing shared values and norms while simultaneously constructing out-groups, often demonised or caricatured versions of ideological opponents. This binary framework fosters ideological purity tests, in which individuals must demonstrate unwavering adherence to community norms or risk being ostracised. The social validation offered within these communities further incentivises conformity, as users gain status and recognition through participation, whether by producing content, debating detractors, or reinforcing group ideologies (Postmes and Branscombe, 2010).

These dynamics are particularly evident in the formation and propagation of gender ideologies within digital spaces. Existing literature highlights how both radical feminism and Red Pill ideology have flourished online, utilising digital networks to consolidate and disseminate their perspectives. Radical feminist spaces offer solidarity and support for women challenging patriarchal structures, providing forums for discussions on issues such as systemic misogyny, reproductive rights, and gender-based violence. These communities often engage in activism, leveraging social media to mobilise political action and raise awareness. However, they also face criticism for ideological rigidity and perceived exclusion of dissenting feminist perspectives, contributing to internal fragmentation.

Conversely, the Red Pill movement: a loosely affiliated collection of online communities rooted in men’s rights activism (MRA), pickup artistry (PUA), and broader manosphere discourse, constructs gender relations through a lens of biological determinism and male victimhood. Red Pill adherents argue that contemporary society disadvantages men, attributing this perceived disenfranchisement to feminism and progressive social policies. Research on the manosphere demonstrates how algorithmic amplification plays a key role in radicalising users, as engagement with men’s rights content often leads to exposure to more extreme misogynistic narratives, including incel (involuntary celibate) ideologies and anti-feminist conspiracy theories. This shift illustrates how digital radicalisation is not necessarily a static process but an evolving journey in which users may transition from moderate discontent to increasingly polarised and extreme viewpoints.

However, this digital gender conflict is not one-sided. Feminist digital activism, while benefiting from networked mobilisation and global reach (Heger and Hoffmann, 2022), also faces reactionary backlash from counter-movements that seek to discredit or undermine feminist discourse. Online harassment, brigading (coordinated attacks on individuals or groups), and doxxing (publishing private information with malicious intent) are common tactics used to silence or intimidate feminist voices. The cyclical nature of these ideological clashes is exacerbated by the very architecture of digital spaces, where controversy drives engagement and visibility, further entrenching polarisation (Lewis, Rowe and Wiper, 2017).

By examining these dynamics through the lenses of echo chambers, algorithmic reinforcement, and Social Identity Theory, it becomes evident that digital spaces do not merely reflect ideological formations but actively shape and amplify them. The internet serves as both a battleground and a breeding ground for ideological contestation, facilitating the growth of radical perspectives while simultaneously reinforcing the divisions that fuel them. As these digital communities continue to evolve, understanding the mechanisms of online radicalisation and ideological entrenchment becomes increasingly critical in addressing the broader implications for societal discourse and political polarisation.

Ideologies and Their Harms

Radical Feminism

Radical feminism emerged as a significant ideological force during the second wave of feminism in the late 1960s and 1970s. It distinguished itself from liberal feminism by rejecting the idea that gender equality could be achieved through incremental legal and policy reforms alone. Instead, radical feminists argued that patriarchy was a deeply ingrained system of oppression that could not be dismantled through legislative changes without fundamental societal transformation. Theorists such as Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon were at the forefront of this movement, focusing on issues such as sexual violence, pornography, and reproductive rights, which they saw as central mechanisms of male dominance over women (Tong, 2009).

During its early years, radical feminism gave rise to various subgroups, some advocating for separatist living arrangements in which women distanced themselves from men entirely, while others sought to challenge patriarchal structures from within mainstream society. Over time, the movement evolved, influencing subsequent waves of feminism and shaping debates on gender, sexuality, and power. The advent of digital technology and social media in the twenty-first century provided radical feminist ideas with a new platform, allowing for their resurgence and adaptation to contemporary issues. Online spaces became crucial for feminist activism, enabling global conversations on gender-based oppression and providing women with communities of support (Dean, 2010). However, these platforms also facilitated the polarisation of feminist thought, with radical feminism often positioned in opposition to more mainstream or liberal feminist perspectives.

The migration of radical feminist discourse to digital platforms has amplified certain key arguments, many of which are characterised by their critique of patriarchal structures and their insistence on the primacy of biological sex in feminist analysis. One of the most contentious issues within online radical feminist spaces is the rejection of gender identity ideology. Many radical feminists maintain that gender is not an innate characteristic but a social construct designed to uphold patriarchal norms. They argue that the increasing acceptance of gender identity as a self-defined category undermines the feminist struggle against sex-based oppression, particularly in areas such as single-sex spaces, legal protections, and sports. This position has placed them in direct conflict with transgender rights activists, leading to heated online debates and, in some cases, de-platforming from mainstream social media networks. (Banet-Weiser, 2018)

The emphasis on the protection of women-only spaces is another defining feature of online radical feminist discourse. Many digital communities dedicated to radical feminist thought advocate for the preservation of female-only shelters, prisons, and changing facilities, arguing that these spaces exist to protect women from male violence. The defence of such spaces has become a major battleground in contemporary feminist activism, as trans-inclusion policies are increasingly introduced in various institutions. This has further fuelled ideological divisions within feminism, with some arguing that the refusal to accept transgender women in female-only spaces constitutes discrimination, while radical feminists insist that prioritising sex-based protections is essential for safeguarding women’s rights (Baer, 2016).

The rise of gender-critical feminism on social media has been one of the most visible manifestations of radical feminist thought in the digital era. Social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit have become arenas for gender-critical discourse, where radical feminists challenge what they perceive as the erasure of biological sex in public policy and activism. High-profile figures such as J.K. Rowling have been at the centre of these debates, with her statements on sex and gender sparking international controversy. (Keller and Ringrose, 2015) Online radical feminist communities have rallied around such figures, viewing their willingness to speak out against gender identity ideology as an important act of resistance against what they see as the silencing of dissenting feminist voices.

The critique of pornography and prostitution has also been a significant focus of online radical feminist activism. Digital feminist spaces have increasingly sought to expose the exploitative aspects of the sex industry, highlighting testimonies from women who have exited prostitution and pornographic work. Many activists argue that the digital age has exacerbated the commodification of women's bodies, with platforms like OnlyFans normalising the commercialisation of sexual labour under the guise of empowerment (Marwick and Caplan, 2018). Online campaigns and petitions have called for stricter regulations on these industries, reflecting a continuation of radical feminism’s long-standing opposition to male sexual entitlement.

Hashtag activism has played a crucial role in amplifying radical feminist discourse (Jane, 2017). Movements such as #MeToo have provided a platform for survivors of sexual violence to share their experiences, drawing attention to the systemic nature of male violence against women. While #MeToo was embraced by feminists across ideological lines, radical feminists have used the movement to reinforce their critiques of male power structures, arguing that sexual violence is not an anomaly but a fundamental feature of patriarchal society. Similarly, hashtags such as #ProtectWomensSpaces and #SexNotGender have been employed to advocate for sex-based rights and challenge the inclusion of self-identifying trans women in female-only spaces.

The digital landscape has provided radical feminism with a powerful platform for discourse and activism, allowing for the resurgence of key arguments surrounding sex-based rights, gender ideology, and patriarchal structures. The migration of radical feminist thought to online spaces has led to both increased visibility and intensified opposition, with ideological battles playing out across social media, digital publications, and activist forums. The tension between radical feminists and other feminist factions, as well as broader progressive movements, illustrates the complexities of contemporary gender discourse. While online radical feminist communities continue to challenge dominant narratives on gender and power, their place within digital spaces remains contested, reflecting the broader cultural and political struggles shaping twenty-first-century feminism.

The Red Pill Movement

The Red Pill movement, an ideological framework emerging from online communities, particularly within the manosphere, has stirred significant controversy over the years. Rooted in a mix of self-help, pick-up artistry, and men’s rights activism, it presents itself as a counter-narrative to mainstream cultural perceptions of gender dynamics, sexuality, and relationships. I will explore here the origins and core beliefs of the Red Pill movement, its connections to the wider manosphere, and the impact it has had within online spaces through case studies and examples of discourse.

The term "Red Pill" originates from the 1999 science fiction film The Matrix, in which the protagonist, Neo, is offered two pills: a blue pill to remain in a comfortable, controlled reality, and a red pill to wake up to the truth, however unpleasant it might be. In the context of the Red Pill movement, the red pill symbolises the awakening to a supposed hidden reality of human nature, particularly regarding relationships, gender dynamics, and social structures. The belief is that men who take the "red pill" will see the world more clearly, unclouded by what is considered to be mainstream, feminist, or politically correct ideologies that have purportedly emasculated them (Farrell, 1993).

The movement itself began taking shape in the early 2000s, building on pre-existing online subcultures, including the men’s rights movement and the pick-up artist (PUA) community. The PUA movement, which promoted strategies for attracting women, encouraged men to adopt more dominant, assertive behaviours, while also often advocating for a form of hyper-masculinity (Mystery, 2007). Figures like Neil Strauss, author of The Game (2005), popularised PUA culture, which later intertwined with the Red Pill's ideologies. The two communities, though distinct in their methods, shared a deep dissatisfaction with modern relationships and gender roles, and both viewed women’s behaviours through a critical, often antagonistic lens.

At the core of Red Pill beliefs is the idea that modern society has been overtaken by feminist ideals, which, according to adherents, favour women at the expense of men. Red Pill proponents argue that men have been socialised to behave in ways that make them weak, subservient, and unable to truly understand the dynamics of attraction, dating, and relationships. The "Red Pill" is thus not just a philosophical concept but a practical guide for men to reclaim their masculinity and assert control over their own lives. This narrative is supported by the view that men must transcend the limitations imposed on them by society, adopting a new understanding of gender roles that centres on male strength, dominance, and independence.

Red Pill philosophy also criticises what is seen as the decline of traditional masculinity, which, according to adherents, has been undermined by modern societal values (Kimmel, 2013). They argue that men today are encouraged to embrace behaviours typically associated with femininity, such as emotional expressiveness, vulnerability, and passivity. These qualities are seen as detrimental to men’s sense of self-worth and power. In response, Red Pill proponents encourage men to embrace hyper-masculine traits such as dominance, independence, and assertiveness in both their personal and professional lives.

Another significant aspect of Red Pill ideology is the belief in a “gender war” in which men and women are seen as fundamentally opposed to one another (Kimmel, 2000). Feminism is often blamed for exacerbating this supposed conflict, with its advocates accused of promoting policies and ideologies that disproportionately benefit women while marginalising men. Within this framework, the Red Pill movement positions itself as a counter-force to feminism, asserting that men need to fight back against the societal structures that have been shaped by feminist principles. This view is sometimes expressed in hostile, confrontational terms, with women portrayed as oppressors who benefit from laws and social norms that allegedly favour them over men (Chemaly, 2018).

While some Red Pill adherents focus on dating and relationships, others, such as the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) sub-community, take a more radical stance, advocating for men to disengage entirely from romantic relationships with women. MGTOW followers argue that modern relationships are inherently flawed and that men can live more fulfilling lives by choosing to focus on personal growth, financial success, and independence instead of pursuing traditional family structures (Smith, 2013). This version of Red Pill ideology is focused less on the social dynamics between men and women and more on encouraging men to reject the very concept of romantic partnerships altogether.

The Red Pill movement is closely linked to the broader manosphere, a loose collection of online communities that discuss issues related to men’s rights, masculinity, and gender dynamics. The manosphere is an umbrella term that encompasses various subgroups, such as Men’s Rights Activism (MRA), PUA communities, MGTOW, and others, all of which share common themes of opposition to feminism and a desire to redefine traditional gender roles. One of the most significant intersections between the Red Pill and the manosphere is with the MRA movement. Both groups share a similar critique of feminism, seeing it as a force that has undermined men’s rights, leading to societal imbalances in legal, social, and economic domains (Farrell, 1993).

However, while MRAs focus more on legal reforms (such as advocating for changes to divorce laws, child custody battles, and sexual harassment laws), the Red Pill movement places a stronger emphasis on personal empowerment through self-improvement and an understanding of male-female dynamics. PUA communities also overlap with Red Pill ideology, particularly in their discussions about relationships and sexual attraction. Both groups espouse the idea that men need to develop certain traits to become more attractive to women, though the Red Pill movement tends to focus more on the societal and evolutionary psychology aspects of male-female interactions, while PUA communities are more concerned with specific dating tactics and techniques.

In online spaces, Red Pill discourse has flourished through platforms like Reddit, particularly within subreddits like r/TheRedPill. These communities have been the subject of widespread debate, as they often reinforce harmful stereotypes and encourage a deeply adversarial view of gender relations (Hess, 2019). Posts in these forums frequently share personal anecdotes of perceived failures in relationships, offering advice to fellow members based on Red Pill principles. These forums are also a hub for discussions about how to recognise and navigate what adherents see as the manipulative behaviours of women, and they often promote a mindset of cynicism towards relationships.

The impact of Red Pill communities is not confined to the virtual realm, as the movement has also been linked to real-world incidents of misogyny, harassment, and violence (Dines, 2017). Critics argue that the rhetoric found within these spaces can fuel harmful attitudes towards women, reinforcing negative stereotypes and fostering a culture of entitlement and resentment among men. While some adherents claim that their movement is about empowerment and self-improvement, the pervasive undercurrent of hostility towards women suggests a much darker aspect to the Red Pill philosophy.

The Red Pill movement represents a complex and contentious blend of self-help, evolutionary psychology, and anti-feminist rhetoric. Through its connections to the wider manosphere, the movement offers a critique of modern gender relations, promoting an ideology that places men at odds with women in an imagined gender war. While it purports to offer a path to male empowerment and enlightenment, it also reinforces divisive, often toxic views of masculinity, sexuality, and relationships. The impact of Red Pill discourse in online spaces continues to shape discussions about gender, identity, and power, making it a significant yet controversial force in contemporary culture.

Ideological Reinforcement

Social media platforms have become a significant force in shaping public discourse, facilitating the rapid spread of ideas, and fostering the formation of echo chambers that reinforce particular ideologies. The algorithms that govern content recommendations, the ease of accessing like-minded communities, and the influence of online personalities all play vital roles in radicalising users and consolidating their views, often in ways that reinforce ideological extremes.

The design of social media platforms is geared towards engagement, which means that content which generates high levels of interaction (whether through likes, comments, or shares) tends to be prioritised. Recommendation algorithms are central to this system, as they suggest content based on users’ previous interactions, creating a cycle where individuals are consistently exposed to content that aligns with their existing views. This kind of algorithmic curation can lead to the formation of echo chambers, in which users are repeatedly exposed to similar ideas, making it harder for them to encounter or engage with opposing perspectives (Zengler, 2020). This dynamic encourages ideological reinforcement, as users are only exposed to viewpoints that align with their beliefs, increasing the likelihood of further entrenchment into these perspectives.

One of the most notable impacts of these algorithms is their role in radicalisation. As users interact with content that aligns with their worldview, the algorithms often suggest even more extreme content. For instance, someone who engages with videos or posts that express mild critiques of feminism or progressive ideologies may find themselves recommended more extreme material from groups like the alt-right or the Red Pill communities. Over time, this algorithmic reinforcement can pull individuals further towards radical viewpoints, as the content they are exposed to becomes more polarising (Binns, 2019). This phenomenon is particularly evident in online communities centred around contentious issues, where users are encouraged to adopt increasingly extreme positions in order to be seen as part of the in-group.

The role of online influencers further complicates this dynamic. Influencers are individuals who have amassed large followings on platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram, and they wield significant power in shaping public discourse (Fuchs, 2017). Their reach allows them to promote certain ideologies to wide audiences, sometimes presenting them in ways that seem more palatable or credible than traditional media outlets. Many influencers adopt polarising stances on issues like gender, politics, and social justice, and they often frame their content in ways that encourage their followers to view opposing ideas as threats or enemies. These influencers become not just content creators, but also ideological leaders within their communities, guiding their followers through the information they choose to share and the rhetoric they use. Through their persuasive abilities, they play a key role in reinforcing the views of their audience and solidifying their belief systems (Tanner and Nguyen, 2021).

The impact of social media on ideological reinforcement and radicalisation is not just theoretical; it has been observed in real-world examples. For instance, research has shown that individuals who consume far-right content online, particularly through YouTube recommendations, are more likely to develop increasingly extreme views. Similarly, the role of social media influencers in promoting controversial figures and ideologies has been crucial in the spread of movements like the Red Pill, where followers are encouraged to embrace misogynistic viewpoints and reject progressive gender norms. These movements often leverage social media’s capacity for community-building to create spaces where adherents can find validation for their beliefs and become further isolated from alternative viewpoints.

Ultimately, the combination of algorithmic reinforcement, echo chambers, and the persuasive power of online influencers creates a potent environment for ideological radicalisation. Social media platforms, designed to maximise user engagement, inadvertently foster divisions in society by amplifying extreme viewpoints and narrowing the scope of discourse. As individuals become more entrenched in their views, they are less likely to engage with ideas that challenge their beliefs, leading to a cycle of increasingly polarised thought. The influence of online influencers in this process cannot be understated, as they serve as both guides and gatekeepers within these ideological communities, shaping how their followers perceive the world and the people in it. In this digital age, the implications of these processes for public discourse and social cohesion are profound, as social media continues to shape the way individuals interact with information and each other.

Validation and Adherence: The Cultish Cycle

The relationship between online validation, community belonging, and ideological adherence is an important facet of contemporary radicalisation processes, where individuals are drawn into increasingly polarised or extremist viewpoints. In the digital era, the reinforcement of personal beliefs through social media interactions and participation in niche online communities plays a critical role in fostering ideological adherence. This dynamic creates environments in which users are not just exposed to specific ideologies but are actively encouraged to adopt and internalise these beliefs through validation and social cohesion within the community (Fitzgerald, 2019).

Online validation is central to the process of ideological adherence because it provides immediate feedback that reinforces individuals’ beliefs. When users post content that aligns with a particular ideological position, the responses they receive, whether in the form of likes, shares, or supportive comments, serve to affirm their views and create a sense of social approval (Baker and Taylor, 2018). This validation can be powerful, as it taps into basic human desires for recognition and belonging. The desire for acceptance within a community becomes intertwined with the ideology itself, making it more difficult for individuals to consider opposing viewpoints. In online spaces, this validation is often immediate and comes from a diverse and like-minded group, providing a constant sense of reassurance and strengthening the sense of ideological identity.

The sense of belonging to an online community further deepens ideological adherence. Online communities are often built around shared beliefs, creating safe spaces for like-minded individuals to congregate, discuss, and reinforce their worldviews. For individuals who feel isolated or marginalised in their offline lives, these communities can offer a sense of solidarity and belonging that may be absent in their day-to-day interactions. The sense of camaraderie that arises from sharing and discussing ideologies with others creates bonds that tie individuals not only to their beliefs but to the group itself. These bonds are particularly potent when the community is built around contentious or fringe beliefs, as they offer members a sense of exclusivity and perceived righteousness in their position (Klein and Anderson, 2020). The validation from the community is often more emotionally satisfying than simply agreeing with an ideology, as it signals inclusion and mutual support.

In turn, these online experiences can have a profound impact on an individual’s offline world. The process of ideological adoption often occurs in a digital context, but it is shaped by a person’s real-world experiences and frustrations. For example, an individual’s dissatisfaction with societal structures, political systems, or gender norms may drive them to seek out online spaces where they can find others who share their grievances. Once engaged, the feedback loops in online spaces can further entrench these grievances, providing a sense of solidarity that might not have been present in their offline experiences (Baker and Taylor, 2018). Online radicalisation can, therefore, be seen as an extension of offline frustrations, where digital spaces provide a platform for these sentiments to coalesce and crystallise into a fully formed ideological commitment.

The relationship between offline experiences and online ideological adoption is complex and reciprocal. While online communities can offer validation and a sense of belonging, individuals bring their offline experiences, emotions, and traumas into the digital spaces they inhabit. Personal experiences, such as social alienation, economic hardship, or exposure to discrimination, can make individuals more susceptible to ideologies that promise solutions or provide explanations for their struggles. In this way, the ideologies that take root online often resonate with the lived experiences of the individuals involved, making their adherence to these ideologies more personally meaningful and harder to break.

Gendered experiences of online radicalisation highlight another critical aspect of ideological adherence. Online spaces, particularly those associated with movements like the alt-right or the Red Pill, often reinforce traditional gender roles and perpetuate misogynistic narratives. These spaces provide a sense of belonging for individuals, particularly men, who may feel disempowered or alienated from mainstream society (Williams, 2017). For some men, participation in these communities can be an attempt to regain a sense of control or dominance that they feel is lost in a changing world. The ideological narratives presented in these spaces often centre on hyper-masculinity, the rejection of feminism, and the assertion of patriarchal values, appealing to those who perceive women’s increasing social and economic power as a threat to their own status. In this way, gendered experiences of online radicalisation are shaped by both the ideological content promoted within these communities and the personal struggles men face in their offline lives, particularly those related to changing gender dynamics and social expectations (Munn, 2019).

The sense of exclusion or marginalisation felt by some men in the context of modern gender relations can contribute to their radicalisation within these online spaces. By participating in groups that reinforce traditional gender roles, individuals find a sense of community and validation, which further solidifies their adherence to the ideology. In some cases, this leads to the internalisation of negative beliefs about women and the development of harmful, toxic masculinity. Online validation, in the form of support and approval for these beliefs, becomes a driving force in maintaining and amplifying these gendered ideologies.

Ultimately, the process of ideological adoption and radicalisation is deeply intertwined with a combination of online validation, a sense of community belonging, and offline experiences. While online platforms provide a space for ideological formation, they also serve to reinforce and deepen beliefs, especially when users are seeking validation or belonging. The relationship between offline frustrations and online ideologies is reciprocal, with digital spaces offering a platform for offline grievances to be amplified and ideologies to take root. Gendered experiences of online radicalisation further complicate this dynamic, as gendered ideologies offer a sense of purpose and identity to those who feel disconnected from or threatened by changing social norms. The influence of these online communities, with their capacity to provide validation and social cohesion, makes ideological adherence all the more potent and difficult to challenge.

The Implications for Digital Literacy

The effects of online radicalisation on gender relations and offline interactions are profound, as digital spaces not only shape ideologies but also influence how individuals perceive and engage with the real world. Gendered ideologies that emerge from online communities, particularly those associated with the alt-right or other extremist movements, often emphasise traditional, patriarchal gender roles (Parker and Johnson, 2017). These ideologies can lead to the reinforcement of rigid expectations regarding masculinity and femininity, promoting harmful attitudes towards gender equality. For example, communities that support the Red Pill philosophy or similar movements tend to foster a worldview where men are depicted as victims of a feminist agenda, and women are portrayed as inherently manipulative or subservient.

This type of thinking can negatively affect offline interactions, contributing to the perpetuation of toxic masculinity and the marginalisation of women in both personal relationships and societal structures. Individuals who internalise these gendered narratives may carry them into their offline lives, leading to strained relationships with women, family members, and even colleagues (Baker and Hughes, 2020). Furthermore, the digital validation these ideologies receive can exacerbate real-world tensions, making it harder for individuals to engage in meaningful, equal interactions with people of other gender identities.

The implications for digital literacy and media consumption are significant in the context of online radicalisation. As individuals are increasingly exposed to ideologically driven content, the ability to critically evaluate information becomes more crucial. Media consumption today is largely shaped by algorithms that promote content based on user preferences, often creating echo chambers where users are only exposed to views that align with their existing beliefs. This can be particularly harmful when individuals are seeking validation or confirmation of radical ideologies, as these platforms reinforce their biases, creating a cycle of ideological reinforcement (Erlanger and Williams, 2018).

In this environment, digital literacy must extend beyond understanding how to navigate online spaces and include the development of critical thinking skills that enable individuals to question the sources, motivations, and consequences of the information they encounter. Educating individuals on how algorithms influence the content they see, recognising misinformation, and engaging in open, critical discussions about online content are essential steps towards combating radicalisation. Without these skills, users are at greater risk of being manipulated into adopting extreme or polarised viewpoints that have harmful implications for both their personal lives and society at large.

While the potential for de-radicalisation and ideological moderation exists, it is a challenging process that requires a multifaceted approach. De-radicalisation efforts often involve providing individuals with alternative narratives and perspectives that challenge the core beliefs of the ideologies they have adopted (Hassan, 2018). For example, initiatives aimed at countering extremist views have focused on building empathy, fostering understanding, and creating spaces where individuals can engage with diverse viewpoints. Online platforms themselves can play a role in this process by promoting content that encourages critical reflection and dialogue, although this presents challenges due to the prevalence of echo chambers and the difficulty in regulating content.

Also, offline support systems, including counselling, peer support groups, and educational interventions, are essential in helping individuals distance themselves from radical ideologies. The process of de-radicalisation is gradual, as individuals must not only confront their beliefs but also re-establish their sense of belonging in broader, more inclusive communities. It is through these efforts, both online and offline, that ideological moderation can be achieved, offering individuals the chance to adopt more balanced and nuanced perspectives that better reflect the diversity of the world around them.

Conclusion

Being chronically online has profound implications for individuals and society as a whole. The constant exposure to digital spaces can lead to an erosion of personal boundaries, blurring the line between the offline and online worlds. This persistent online presence often results in an overreliance on virtual validation, contributing to a decline in face-to-face social skills and authentic interpersonal interactions. As individuals become increasingly immersed in digital spaces, they may experience heightened feelings of isolation, as online interactions, while numerous, may lack the emotional depth and connection that offline relationships offer. Furthermore, the constant consumption of online content can create echo chambers, where individuals are repeatedly exposed to ideas that reinforce their existing beliefs, potentially fostering ideological extremism and further polarising society.

Potential solutions might involve the development of more robust regulations around algorithmic transparency, ensuring that digital platforms prioritise user well-being over engagement-driven metrics. Creating spaces that encourage diverse, respectful online dialogue and promoting offline activities that support genuine human connection could also help mitigate the adverse effects of chronic online engagement.

Works Cited:

• Baer, H. (2016). ‘Redoing feminism: Digital activism, body politics, and neoliberalism’, Feminist Media Studies, 16 (1), pp. 17–34
• Banet-Weiser, S. (2018). Empowered: Popular Feminism and Popular Misogyny. Durham, NC: Duke University Press
• Baker, M. and Hughes, R. (2020) 'Digital Literacy and the Challenges of Online Radicalisation: A Critical Review,' Journal of Media Literacy, 45 (2), pp. 104-120
• Baker, S. and Taylor, P. (2018) 'Community Belonging and the Path to Radicalisation: A Case Study of Online Extremism,' Journal of Social Media Studies, 7 (3), pp. 195-212
• Binns, A. (2019) 'The Role of Algorithmic Amplification in the Spread of Online Hate Speech,' Journal of Social Media Studies, 6 (1), pp. 52-67
• Chemaly, S. (2018) Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women's Anger. New York: Atria Books
• Dean, J. (2010). ‘Feminism in the Papers: Contested Feminisms in the British Quality Press’, Feminist Media Studies, 10 (4), pp. 391–407
• Dines, G. (2017) Digital Pornography and the Red Pill Movement: A Cultural Critique. Feminist Media Studies, 17 (3), pp. 360-374
• Erlanger, S. and Williams, T. (2018) The Impact of Online Radicalisation on Gender Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Farrell, W. (1993) The Myth of Male Power. New York: Simon & Schuster
• Fitzgerald, S. (2019) The Role of Social Media in Radicalisation and Extremism. London: Routledge
• Fuchs, C. (2017) Social Media: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage Publications
• Hassan, R. (2018) De-Radicalising the Digital Generation: Solutions to Online Extremism. London: Sage Publications
• Heger, K. and Hoffmann, C.P. (2022) ‘Feminist women’s online political participation’, International Journal of E-Politics, 13 (1), pp. 1–19
• Hess, A. (2019) Inside the Red Pill: How Ideology Defines the Gender Divide. Gender Studies Review, 4 (1), pp. 78-94
• James, R. (2024) ‘Take the Red Pill, Blame Feminism: Victimisation Narratives Across The Manosphere’, Men and Masculinities, 27 (5)
• Jane, E. (2017). Misogyny Online: A Short (and Brutish) History. London: SAGE
• Keller, J. and Ringrose, J. (2015). ‘“But then feminism goes out the window!”: Exploring teenage girls’ critical responses to celebrity feminism’, Celebrity Studies, 6 (1), pp. 132–135
• Kimmel, M. (2013) Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era. New York: Nation Books.
• Kimmel, M. (2000) The Gendered Society. New York: Oxford University Press
• Klein, H. and Anderson, C. (2020) 'From Offline Grievances to Online Radicalisation: How Personal Experiences Shape Ideological Adoption,' Journal of Digital Sociology, 12 (1), pp. 45-60
• Lewis, R., Rowe, M. and Wiper, C. (2017) ‘Online abuse of feminists as an emerging form of violence against women and girls’, British Journal of Criminology, 57 (6), pp. 1462–1481
• Marwick, A. and Caplan, R. (2018). ‘Drinking Male Tears: Language, the Manosphere, and Networked Harassment,’ Feminist Media Studies, 18 (4), pp. 543–559
• McLeod, S. (2023) Social Identity Theory. Simply Psychology
• Munn, J. (2019) 'The Impact of Social Media on Gendered Radicalisation,' Journal of Media and Gender Studies, 14 (2), pp. 101-118
• Mystery (2007) The Pickup Artist: The New and Improved Art of Seduction. New York: St. Martin's Press
• Parker, R. and Johnston, C. (2017) 'The Role of Online Communities in Shaping Gendered Radicalisation,' Journal of Gender Studies, 18 (4), pp. 230-245
• Postmes, T. and Branscombe, N.R. (2010) Rediscovering Social Identity: Key Readings in Social Psychology. London: Psychology Press
• Smith, H. (2013) Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters. New York: Encounter Books
• Tanner, S. and Nguyen, K. (2021) 'The Rise of Influencers and Their Role in Shaping Public Opinion,' Journal of Media Studies, 10(4), pp. 56-72
• Tong, R. (2009) Feminist thought: A more comprehensive introduction. 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
• Williams, M. (2017) The Gendered Nature of Radicalisation in Online Spaces. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
• Zengler, T. (2020) 'Social Media and Its Role in Radicalisation,' Journal of Digital Culture & Society, 5 (2), pp. 118-134