Intellectual dark web

The American venture capital director Eric Weinstein stated that when he coined the term he was "half-joking".[1][2] This occurred after Weinstein's brother, biologist Bret Weinstein, was forced to resign in 2017 from his position as professor of biology at Evergreen State College in response to protests against his criticism of a campus event, that asked white students to stay off campus as opposed to the previous annual tradition of black students voluntarily absenting themselves.[3] The website Big Think has argued that other controversies, dating back to 2014, should also be viewed as antecedents to the IDW. These include a debate between Sam Harris and Ben Affleck on Real Time with Bill Maher in October 2014, the publication of Google's Ideological Echo Chamber by James Damore in August 2017, and Cathy Newman's interview of Jordan Peterson on Channel 4 News in January 2018, each of which related to controversial topics such as Islamic extremism and workplace diversity policies.[4]

The term gained traction after a May 2018 opinion piece by staff editor Bari Weiss was published in The New York Times titled "Meet the Renegades of the Intellectual Dark Web". Weiss characterized individuals she named as associated with the intellectual dark web as "iconoclastic thinkers, academic renegades and media personalities", who have been "purged from institutions that have become increasingly hostile to unorthodox thought", and who have instead taken to social media, podcasting, public speaking, and other alternative venues outside "legacy media".[1][5] Weiss stated "the Intellectual Dark Web [is] a term coined half-jokingly by Mr. Weinstein".[1]

Weiss's piece sparked a number of critiques. Jonah Goldberg, writing in the National Review, said the "label is a bit overwrought", writing that it struck him "as a marketing label — and not necessarily a good one: ...it seems to me this IDW thing isn't actually an intellectual movement. It’s just a coalition of thinkers and journalists who happen to share a disdain for the keepers of the liberal orthodoxy."[6] Henry Farrell, writing in Vox, expressed disbelief that conservative commentator Ben Shapiro or neuroscientist Sam Harris, both claimed to be among the intellectual dark web by Weiss, could credibly be described as either purged or silenced. Weiss' fellow New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted the irony of claiming popular intellectual oppression by the mainstream, while publishing in the Times, among the most prominent newspapers in the nation.[7] David A. French contended many of the critics were missing the point, and were instead inadvertently confirming "the need for a movement of intellectual free-thinkers."[8]

In 2019, a study from the UFMG found a pattern of migration of viewers who comment on YouTube videos, from commenting on clips associated with the IDW and the "alt-lite" to commenting on more right-wing and/or alt-right videos. The study looked at over 331,000 videos that an algorithm had classified as right-wing, analyzed 79 million YouTube comments, and found a group that migrated from IDW channels to "alt-lite" channels, and then the alt-right channels. The subjects who left comments at an IDW channels were more likely to graduate after a few years to leaving significantly more comments on alt-right channels than the control group. The study's authors said they were not intending to "point fingers" rather draw attention to the effects of YouTube's recommendation algorithm, calling it an "almost totally algorithm-driven process."[9][10]

According to Bari Weiss, individuals associated with the intellectual dark web include[1][5]:

• Ayaan Hirsi Ali
• Carl Benjamin
• Yaron Brook
• Jonathan Haidt
• Sam Harris
• Heather Heying
• Claire Lehmann
• Douglas Murray
• Maajid Nawaz
• Jordan Peterson
• Steven Pinker
• Joe Rogan
• Dave Rubin
• Ben Shapiro
• Lindsay Shepherd
• Michael Shermer
• Debra W. Soh
• Christina Hoff Sommers
• Bret Weinstein
• Eric Weinstein

Although those associated with the IDW primarily criticize the political left, "some claim to lean to the left, others to the right".[11][1] Criticism of the IDW has come primarily from the left and support from the right.[1][11][12] The Guardian characterized the IDW as strange bedfellows that nonetheless comprised the "supposed thinking wing of the alt-right", despite many associated individuals repeatedly expressing contempt for the alt-right, including Ben Shapiro, who is frequently a target of anti-semitism from the alt-right.[13] The Los Angeles Review of Books described the members as identifying with both the left and the right, but united against "primary adversaries" hailing predominantly from the left, including post-modernism, post-structuralism, Marxism, and political correctness in general, as well as being united against "the neo-fascist alt-right".[11] Additionally, members routinely speak against identity politics, whether from the progressive left or the alt-right.

Alt-right characterizations, such as that from the Guardian, has been rejected by others from within the IDW, such as Quillette, founded by Claire Lehmann and described by Politico as the "unofficial digest" of the IDW. Quoting Sam Harris and Daniel Miessler, they have contended that the majority of the most prominent members of the IDW tend to skew toward the left on most political issues, despite also including a number of prominent conservatives who do not.[14][15]

Regarding the organization of the IDW, Daniel W. Drezner observed that it is essentially leaderless, and may be individually beholden to their audiences, and unable to progress a coherent agenda.[16] Some writers, including Cathy Young, have expressed uncertainty over whether they belong in the intellectual dark web.[17] For her part, historian of medicine and science Alice Dreger expressed surprise in being told she was a member of the IDW at all. After she was invited to be profiled in the New York Times article, she stated that she "had no idea who half the people in this special network were. The few Intellectual Dark Web folks I had met I didn't know very well. How could I be part of a powerful intellectual alliance when I didn’t even know these people?"[18]

Sources disagree on what, if any unifying factors exist throughout the IDW. Psychology Today characterized it as "generally concerned about political tribalism and free speech",[19] or as a rejection of "mainstream assumptions about what is true".[20] Salon dubbed it a politically conservative movement united more over a rejection of American liberalism than over any mutually shared beliefs.[21][22] Alternatively, the National Review posited that, despite comprising "all political persuasions", IDW was united in a particular conservative leaning conceptualization of injustice and inequality specifically.[23]

• Call-out culture
• Heterodox Academy