Authors
The recent workshop held by doctoral candidates Camilla Gissel, Heidi Campana-Piva and Violette Mens at the STS-CH conference in Zurich entitled “Holding things together? Change, continuity, critique” (from the 10th to 12th of September) began with a provocation: a deepfake video of Kamala Harris circulating online. The clip, shared on Elon Musk’s platform X, had garnered nearly a million likes and tens of thousands of comments. What seemed at first like obvious parody—her voice and image altered to mock her campaign messaging—was, for many viewers, indistinguishable from reality.
This set the stage for a lively discussion not just about deepfakes themselves, but about how technology interacts with political radicalization in an era where truth is increasingly fragile.
When a Joke Stops Being a Joke
One participant raised the question: is a parody video like this really a deepfake, or just satire in digital form? After all, political cartoons have long exaggerated politicians’ flaws for comic effect. Yet others pushed back. Unlike cartoons, which signal their artifice, deepfakes thrive in ambiguity. Some lines in the Harris video were things she had actually said, others were fabrications. That blurring—between critique, parody, and falsehood—creates a puzzle for viewers.
Even when it is “obvious” to some, not everyone has the same interpretive tools. As one participant noted, people already committed to conspiracy thinking (e.g. flat-) can believe almost anything if it confirms their worldview. Deepfakes exploit that cognitive vulnerability.
The Politics of Doubt
The group then shifted to a related danger: once deepfakes exist, politicians can weaponize them to dismiss inconvenient truths. One example shared was of Trump brushing off journalists’ questions about suspicious activity at the White House by declaring “It’s AI. It’s fake.” Whether or not it was fake became irrelevant—what mattered was the ability to cast doubt.
This erosion of shared reality is not accidental. Participants pointed to Trump’s thousands of documented lies in office and the way constant confusion about truth can destabilize citizens. Destabilization breeds fear, and fear drives people to seek stability—often in the arms of authoritarian leaders who promise certainty. In this way, deepfakes are not just tools of deception; they are accelerants in the cycle of radicalization.
Radicalization: More Than a Label
The conversation broadened to the term “radicalization” itself. Too often, the word functions as a blunt political instrument. Governments use it to stigmatize dissent, lumping together jihadists, eco-activists, and radical feminists under the same umbrella. By labeling groups “radicalized,” states can justify surveillance, repression, or even violence.
Several participants argued that radicalization is relational: it doesn’t happen in isolation but through interaction between groups and the state. In France, for example, jihadist violence has fueled harsher policing, which in turn produces resentment and further radicalization. This feedback loop shows radicalization as a dynamic process, not simply a personal pathology.
Others raised the Overton Window: the shifting boundary of what society considers politically acceptable. As mainstream politics drift rightward, advocating for basic human rights can suddenly be branded “radical left.” The term becomes a moving target, often manipulated to discredit opponents rather than to explain genuine extremism.
Beyond Extremes: Who Gets to Define Radical?
An especially striking thread was the comparison between the far right and far left. Media often presents them as mirror images—two extremes equally dangerous. Yet, as some participants noted, the comparison is misleading. The far right frequently undermines democratic norms, while much of the “radical left” remains engaged in democratic processes, calling for rights and reforms rather than authoritarian control.
Academics, too, have tended to study far-right and Islamist extremism while neglecting other forms of radical politics. This selective focus reveals how research agendas themselves are shaped by political pressures, such as the aftermath of terror attacks.
Why This Matters
Deepfakes may seem like a technological novelty, but as the workshop discussion made clear, they are deeply entwined with broader political struggles. They blur the line between fact and fiction, fuel cycles of distrust, and give political actors new tools to label, demonize, and radicalize.
But they also force us to ask hard questions about the words we use. If “radicalization” is applied too broadly, it loses analytical value and becomes little more than a weapon of discourse. And if truth itself becomes negotiable, then the fight is not just about politics, but about the very possibility of shared reality.
The workshop’s starting point—a fake Kamala Harris video—was more than just a gimmick. It was a reminder that in our current moment, what matters is not simply whether something is “true” or “false,” but how technologies of persuasion and doubt are reshaping the terrain of democracy itself.