Stop Blaming the Algorithm for Individual Conviction
The media loves a ghost story. Specifically, they love the story of the "groomed" Westerner—the passive, brainwashed victim who was lured away by the digital siren song of a foreign adversary. When reports surfaced of a 33-year-old British man heading to Eastern Europe to join Russian forces, the narrative was instant and predictable. He was "trapped." He was "radicalized online." He was a "traitor" who didn’t know any better.
This framing is intellectually lazy. It assumes that adults have the agency of a houseplant.
We need to stop pretending that every person who makes a controversial or even abhorrent geopolitical choice is a victim of a sophisticated psychological operation. Radicalization is not a magic trick performed by an algorithm; it is a conscious migration toward a worldview that offers something the domestic environment lacks. By labeling these individuals as merely "groomed," we ignore the deeper, more uncomfortable systemic failures that make such ideologies attractive in the first place.
The Grooming Fallacy
The term "grooming" is being weaponized to strip away the concept of personal responsibility. In its original context, grooming describes the predatory behavior used to exploit minors or vulnerable adults. Applying it to a 33-year-old man with a keyboard and a passport is a category error.
I’ve tracked digital movements for a decade. I’ve watched how groups—from political extremists to fringe cults—operate in the dark corners of the internet. The "lazy consensus" suggests that these people are victims of "echo chambers." But the data tells a different story. Most people aren't stuck in echo chambers because they can't find other information; they are in them because they have actively rejected the mainstream narrative.
When a citizen of a stable Western democracy chooses to fight for a regime like Putin’s, it isn't because they were tricked by a bot on X. It’s because they found a narrative of "strength" or "traditionalism" that they felt was missing from their own culture.
- Misconception: Digital propaganda is a hypnotic force.
- Reality: Propaganda only works when the soil is already prepared by local resentment.
The Failure of the Domestic Narrative
Why does the "traitor" narrative fail? Because it ignores the vacuum.
If your domestic political discourse feels hollow, performative, or disconnected from the lived reality of the working class, people will look elsewhere for meaning. This isn't a defense of their choice—it's a diagnosis of the problem. We see this in the "foreign fighter" phenomenon across the board. Whether it was the wave of radicalization seen during the rise of ISIS or the current trickle of Westerners heading to the Donbas, the common thread isn't the platform used (Telegram, Discord, or WhatsApp). The thread is a profound sense of alienation from the state.
If we want to understand why a Brit would leave his family for a foxhole in Ukraine, we have to look at the breakdown of social cohesion at home. When the state stops providing a sense of purpose or a coherent national identity, the individual will outsource that need to the highest bidder—or the loudest extremist.
Data Doesn't Support the "Brainwashed" Defense
Psychological studies on radicalization, including work by researchers like John Horgan, suggest that the process is rarely about a sudden "snap." It is a slow, methodical narrowing of options.
- Social Isolation: The individual feels disconnected from their immediate community.
- Search for Significance: They look for a cause that makes them feel like a protagonist in a historical drama.
- The Pivot: They find a group that validates their grievances and provides an enemy to blame.
Notice that "high-tech brainwashing" isn't on that list. The internet just speeds up the delivery. It doesn't create the impulse. To claim this man was "traitorous" implies he had a deep-seated loyalty to preserve in the first place. For many of these individuals, that loyalty died years ago, buried under economic stagnation and social atomization.
The High Cost of the "Traitor" Label
Labeling these actors as "traitors" feels good. It’s a moral high ground. But it’s a strategic dead end.
When you call someone a traitor, you end the conversation. You don't have to ask why they left. You don't have to examine if your own society is failing to provide a compelling reason to stay. You just cast them out.
I have seen organizations spend millions on "counter-messaging" programs. They try to "debunk" extremist claims with facts and logic. It almost always fails. Why? Because you can’t use logic to pull someone out of a position they didn’t use logic to get into. They are there for the feeling of belonging. They are there for the clarity of having a clear enemy.
If we want to stop "online grooming," we don't need better censors. We need better societies.
The Digital Scapegoat
The tech companies are the perfect scapegoat for the media. If we blame the "online traitors" and the "algorithms," then the government doesn't have to answer for why its citizens feel so disenfranchised that they’d rather die for a foreign dictator than live in their own suburbs.
The internet is a mirror, not a puppet master. It reflects the cracks that already exist in our social structure. If you don't like what you see in the mirror, breaking it won't fix your face.
The Harsh Truth About Moral Agency
We have to accept the uncomfortable reality: some people choose the "wrong" side with their eyes wide open.
They aren't confused. They aren't victims. They are participants.
This Brit who went to fight for Russia likely knew exactly what he was doing. He weighed his life in the UK—whatever that looked like—against the perceived glory or purpose of the Russian cause, and he made a choice. It was a choice informed by a specific, albeit twisted, set of values.
By infantilizing these individuals as "groomed victims," we deny them the weight of their own actions. We also deny ourselves the opportunity to fix the actual rot. You don't "fix" radicalization with a fact-check. You fix it by building a world where the alternative isn't more attractive than home.
Stop looking at the screen. Look at the room the screen is in.
