Framed by ongoing debates about both the legitimacy and efficacy of the UK government's Prevent counter-terrorism strategy, this article examines how and why it is resisted and contested in both overt and more nuanced ways. The analysis focuses specifically upon how such contests are manifested in the aftermath of terror events illuminated by two distinct data sources. These are empirical data collected from interviews with policy developers and deliverers, together with material derived from systematic monitoring and assessment of social media following four terror attacks in the UK in 2017. It is suggested that such incidents are singularly important moments because they simultaneously evidence the need for Prevent-type interventions, but also such interventions' apparent failures to stop such violence.

A key theme for the article concerns how, situated in the contemporary information environment, a key strand of Prevent work conducted in the wake of terrorist violence involves managing the potential impacts of rumours, conspiracy theories and other disinformation. The management of public perceptions and reputation thus emerge as vital undertakings. Insights from the data are used to develop a more conceptually oriented argument concerning the logics and rationalities of ‘counter-governance’, positioning it in a wider literature on de-centred governance and regulation.

本文围绕英国政府的“预防反恐”战略的合法性和有效性进行了持续的辩论，本文探讨了如何以及为何以公开和更细微的方式抵制和争论该战略。分析着重于如何在两个不同的数据源说明的恐怖事件的后果中表现出这种竞赛。这些都是从政策制定者和提供者的访谈中收集的经验数据，以及在2017年英国发生四次恐怖袭击之后对社交媒体进行系统性监测和评估的资料。建议将此类事件视为非常重要的时刻，因为它们同时证明了需要预防型干预措施，但这种干预措施显然无法制止这种暴力行为。

这篇文章的一个主要主题涉及在当今的信息环境中，如何防止恐怖分子暴力之后开展的预防工作的关键环节涉及管理谣言，阴谋论和其他虚假信息的潜在影响。因此，对公众看法和声誉的管理就成为至关重要的事业。来自数据的洞察力被用于发展关于“反治理”的逻辑和合理性的更概念导向的论点，并将其置于关于分散治理和监管的更广泛文献中。