WHEN SixDegrees, the first recognizable social media website, was created in 1997, I doubt that its owner would have conceived of the snowball effect that would occur shortly thereafter. By 1999, a social media frenzy was created due to the popularity of blogging sites. In the early 2000s, LinkedIn and Myspace were available, and by 2006 YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. Now, Snapchat is taking over. Social media has not only given its users the means to get their voices heard, loud and clear, but it is also now on par with mainstream media, complementing it and competing with it. In my opinion, the two have become synonymous with one another. The media, as we know it today, has become more powerful than ever but its double-edged sword could not be more apparent. World division has never been clearer: the haves and have nots, the religious and the non-religious, the sectarians and the non-sectarians. You, as an individual, are free to be part of any team you choose, without even having to leave your front door. Unfortunately, these teams are often filled with hate and belligerence. People have suddenly become more opinionated and courageous online, portraying a new online persona. Hence, a new phenomenon has been created: cyber-bullying. What about cyber-terrorism? It has long been recognized that terrorist organizations make use of mainstream and social media to spread their messages and recruit members. However, are we, the users, assisting them in accomplishing their goals? Whenever there is a terrorist attack, the media, both mainstream and social, rush to report it. You can expect twenty-four hour coverage for several days: news reports on television, newspaper articles, discussions on Twitter, posts on Facebook and Instagram, and let's not forget YouTube and WhatsApp. Pictures of the terrorist group will be everywhere. For the mischief-maker, is this not the notoriety he craves? Lone wolf or small-scale attacks can now gain maximum publicity. An act committed by a person living in the suburbs of Paris or Belgium can now be considered part of a worldwide terrorist movement. Daesh (the self-proclaimed IS) has suddenly become much larger than what it really is. It has spread its virtual wings to the East and the West, and is able to take credit for acts that it did not necessarily have a hand in - except for a virtual one, that is. Terrorist groups can now spread worldwide fear with minimum expense or effort, because all of the marketing is being done for them, and, ironically, by the people they threaten. According to Michael Jetter, a professor at the School of Economics and Finance at Universidad EAFIT in Medellin, Colombia, who has analyzed more than 60,000 terrorist attacks between 1970 and 2012, "the world has experienced a terrifying, exponential increase in the number of terrorist attacks" over the past 15 years. The Global Terrorism Database reported 1,395 attacks in 1998. This figure rose to 8,441 in 2012 and the total number of casualties increased from 3,387 to 15,396, as reported in the Guardian newspaper. In 2014, the United States Department of State reported 13,463 incidents. Who does the media consist of? You and I. We all play a role in what is being circulated. When a terrorist group strikes, it is we who give them the credibility they crave. The loss of the many lives encountered from terror attacks is painful and newsworthy, but what if we stopped giving terrorists the notoriety they long for and instead, focused on solidarity with the victims, their families and our nations? What if we stopped circulating their threats and stopped watching their videos, and instead reported any cyber-terrorism directly to the relevant authorities? I believe that by refusing to be part of cyber-terrorism we can, together, make a difference. Otherwise, I fear, that with the aid of social media, the number of terrorist attacks will only increase.
