Social media algorithms are designed to prioritize content that aligns with our interests, resulting in the rise of content creators who promote misogynistic and violent views. A study showed that YouTube Shorts’ algorithm promotes extreme videos in response to user behavior, regardless of age or account type, often featuring right-wing and alt-right content creators. This type of content encourages misogynistic attitudes towards women and can lead to more extreme ideologies, potentially leading to violent attacks (Reset Australia 2022).

Andrew Tate is a popular creator of such content, with millions of followers on social platforms like YouTube and TikTok. However, his followers are not just passive consumers; many are part of the manosphere, a collection of websites, blogs, and online forums that believe men have been oppressed by feminist and progressive ideas and need to reclaim their power and masculinity (Basuarchive 2020). These online communities often promote toxic and sexist views of women and view relationships as a game to be won through manipulation and domination. The rhetoric is a convincing mix of degrees of truth coupled with a rage at a world that has failed them.

Recently, I interviewed a former friend who had started sharing content from these creators. When I last saw him a year ago, he was a normal guy, but since then, he has become deeply immersed in this toxic content from YouTube and TikTok. I was shocked by the extent of his transformation when I finally spoke to him in person.

I was curious about how someone could undergo such a dramatic shift in values without realizing it. During the interview, he expressed his admiration for a rising content creator, Hamza, a British Muslim who believes that men are better when they are masculine and women are better when they are feminine, which he claims is necessary for society to function correctly.

In Hamza’s hour-long video “Full Masculine Guide: Become A Man,” he presents a scenario involving two men, Jeffrey and Adonis. Jeffrey is portrayed as “feminine,” meaning he is quiet, submissive, and preoccupied with love and relationships. In contrast, Adonis is “masculine,” with a clear goal, purpose, and disciplined approach to life. Hamza asks his viewers which of these men a woman would find more attractive, implying that being masculine is the key to attracting women.

While I find this scenario to be nonsensical and based on the insecurities of the speaker, my friend, who is also deeply insecure, agreed with Hamza’s viewpoint. Hamza’s video is crafted to manipulate his viewers into believing that they can become more attractive and masculine by following his advice, which he claims is grounded in years of study and personal experience.

Hamza argues that the encouragement of women to make decisions independently has led to more divorce, resulting in fatherless households where children are conditioned by their mothers to be “feminine” (meaning quiet and submissive). This, according to Hamza, results in young men growing up without sufficient testosterone levels, leading to issues like a high rate of suicide among them. To address this issue, Hamza advocates for young men to be more masculine. He claims that by being disciplined and hardworking, one can eventually reach a high status with a lot of money, which will attract women. However, his theory fails to account for the diversity of personalities and experiences among individuals and makes harmful generalizations about gender roles.

Hamza’s video is incredibly persuasive, as he presents his theory from a relatable “normal guy’s” perspective. He peppers his narrative with phrases such as “you might be able to relate to this” and “you totally understand this” to engage his viewers. He also uses scare tactics, such as discussing the hazards of low testosterone levels, to grab the attention of the entire generation of young men. Hamza offers a “life-changing” solution to his viewers by encouraging them to be more masculine. In the part where he explains how to be more masculine, he references Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, progressive overloads, and statistics from Google, which he claims viewers can easily find, implying that there’s no need to look them up. He incorporates values such as being disciplined and motivated, which are widely agreed to be positive traits, to make his viewers even more invested in his narrative. After all, who could argue against the benefits of being disciplined and motivated?

I turned to my friend and asked, “Why do you like this guy so much?” My friend, who I’ll call H, responded, “I used to drink every day, but one day I woke up and realized I couldn’t keep doing that. So, I decided to change. I’ve never found something [Hamza’s videos] that feels so right to me, and when someone tells you that as a man, you should take on more responsibility to make your life better. No one ever tells you that, it’s okay to be a man.”

Curious, I asked, “What is your goal after watching Hamza?” H replied, “To become financially free and support my family.”

I followed up with, “So, being more purposeful means being more masculine?” H responded, “Yes.”

I then asked, “Can women also be purposeful and pursue their goals?” H replied, “Of course, women can do whatever they want. But men typically don’t like women who have a lot of business and a higher status than them.”

I expressed concern, “If women can’t be purposeful because that’s seen as too masculine, we’re wasting a lot of talent.” H countered, “Being a mother is purposeful, and it’s one of the most important jobs. Women should be good at being mothers.”

Feeling speechless, I listened as H continued, “That’s how traditional family units work. If men aren’t masculine and women aren’t feminine, there will be more divorce, which leads to more imbalance and society will crumble.”

I asked, “So, you believe that men should be more masculine and women should be more feminine to create a perfect society?” H responded, “Yes, but I’m not saying people should do that. I’m just saying people should strive to be better.”

Curious, I asked, “What do you think misogyny is?” H replied, “Misogyny is toxic femininity.” When I pressed for an explanation, H shared a story, but I noted that it didn’t actually define misogyny.

After looking up the definition of misogyny and finding that it means “dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women,” H responded, “That means Andrew Tate isn’t necessarily misogynistic. If he truly disliked women, why would he have sex with them?”

I then asked, “If you were a woman and I told you that you shouldn’t pursue your dreams because that’s too masculine, wouldn’t you feel that I have contempt for you?” H replied, “It depends on what kind of dream I have. Women can have jobs and also be good mothers.”

Finally, I asked, “What do you think privilege is?” H replied, “Everyone has privilege. Being alive is a privilege.”

I then asked, “Do you think oppression based on people’s sex or sexuality is real?” H responded, “That’s interesting because the mainstream viewpoint doesn’t take into account anything else, and it’s easy to lie with statistics. The wage gap doesn’t exist, and women our age might be getting paid more than men. They can use platforms like OnlyFans to earn a lot of money. No one is taking a job thinking, ‘I am oppressing women.’ It’s not oppression; it’s just the way the world is. Should we equalize the number of women in prison? Wages are about competence, and that’s how America works. I used to believe in the wage gap, but as soon as I started listening to people who know what’s going on, everything started to make sense.”

During the interview, I observed that H consistently used language and phrasing similar to that used in Hamza’s videos. He often employed simplistic stories and fallacious arguments to counter almost all of my points. For instance, when I asked him to define misogyny, he initially offered a misogynistic response, claiming it was simply “toxic femininity.” However, when he realized this didn’t suffice, he had to look up the definition of misogyny on his phone. Another instance was when I questioned how he would feel if someone told him, as a woman, that he shouldn’t pursue his dreams because they were “too masculine.” Rather than directly addressing my query, he argued that perspectives were the key factor. He rejected mainstream ideas, asserting that the content creators he followed were the ones who knew the truth, and refused to believe in anything else than women have it better than men.

H started out by watching memes as a way of blowing off steam. However, he also felt like a loser in life due to his excessive drinking and lack of direction, coupled with the loss of his parents at a young age. As a result, he began watching motivational shows like the Joe Rogan Experience and David Goggins’ podcasts. Goggins’ story of joining the Navy and pushing himself to achieve the impossible inspired him.

The problem arose when YouTube and TikTok began recommending toxic masculine videos that resonated with his feelings of victimhood and vulnerability, despite his inspiration from figures like Goggins. He began to identify with the manosphere’s message that men were being oppressed by society, and that women were trying to undermine their power. Gradually, he became desensitized to these ideas and was radicalized. How could he NOT fall into this trap when he believes the YouTuber he’s watching is the father he never had.

One possible solution is deplatforming.

Deplatforming refers to the removal of social media accounts for breaking platform rules, which has gained attention as a solution to toxic online communities and the mainstreaming of extreme speech. Many far-right individuals have been deplatformed, impacting their visibility and income streams. Deplatformings have led to migration to alternative platforms, such as Gab, which positions itself as distinct from the ‘left-leaning Big Social monopoly’. However, mainstream social media still drives more traffic to extreme content than alternative platforms (Rogers 2020).

The effectiveness of deplatforming offensive online communities, such as subreddits r/fatpeoplehate and r/coontown, has been studied. The study found that the shutdowns worked in that offending users appeared to leave the platform and the subreddits that inherited those migrating users did not see a significant increase in extreme speech (Rogers 2020).

Another study focuses on the impact of deplatforming on far-right YouTube channels, analyzing 11,198 channels removed between 2018 and 2019 and whether they moved to BitChute. The results suggest that deplatforming is effective in reducing the reach of disinformation and extreme speech, as alternative platforms like BitChute cannot mitigate the negative effect of being deplatformed on YouTube (Rauchfleisch & Kaiser, 2021).

Finally, an article discusses the history and theory of deplatforming in American law, and argues that the practice of excluding individuals or content from critical services has been a common and regularly debated issue throughout history, including in transportation, communications, energy, and banking sectors. The article suggests that American law has traditionally favored reasonable deplatforming, balancing the duty to serve with the need to exclude in limited and justifiable cases. The article also examines common questions around deplatforming and how American law has answered them, and considers how past deplatforming practices can inform current debates over the public and private governance of tech platforms (Sitaraman 2023).

In conclusion, while deplatforming remains a debated issue, further research is needed to explore its long-term effectiveness. In the meantime, Reset Australia has provided three helpful suggestions to address online harms. These include expanding the definition of online harms to address societal and community threats, regulating systems and processes in addition to content moderation, and increasing platform accountability and transparency. These recommendations involve introducing duties of care across the digital regulatory landscape, including the Online Safety Act and Privacy Act, and requiring transparency from online platforms. This could include requirements for algorithmic auditing and data access for researchers and regulators to assess the effects of platform systems on harmful content and outcomes (Reset Australia 2022). By addressing these risks systematically, we can work towards a safer and healthier online environment for all.