Ought to. They said that potential terrorists talk about terrorism, not ideology. The peaceful left- and right-wingers talk about left- and right-wing ideology but the “potential terrorists” are talking about ways and means.
Yeah, but most people talking about "ways and means" aren't planning anything, don't execute any plan, they're just being edgelords or spitballing hypotheticals or teasing the (probably nonexistent) feds that are watching them. For every actual terrorist put on some type of watchlist there are bound to be thousands of edgy teenagers that are on that list for goofing around. That doesn't even speak to the fact that such a tool will be used to go after people simply criticizing their government for it's heavy handed authoritarian activities.
Anyway, my point with the above comment was to poke fun at the article's extreme emphasis on the right wing aspect as opposed to the terrorist aspect. Extremists of all stripes engage in extreme behavior.
Across both datasets, we find that radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated
with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent. In the United States,
we find no difference between the level of violence perpetrated by right-wing
and Islamist extremists. However, differences in violence emerge on the
global level, with Islamist extremists being more likely than right-wing
extremists to engage in more violent acts.
The stereotype of the violent extremist in the US is ideologically confused: they find they had a copy of The Communist Manifesto in their room but drove their neighbors crazy listening to Rush (the Canadian band) at 3am.
Something like this is sure to come with tons of false positives.