Opinion
Tech companies putting blocks on being held to account on racism and hate
The arrogance of companies such as Twitter, Microsoft and Meta is allowing hate to spread
August 10, 2023 11:15
3 min read
The arrogance of companies such as Twitter, Microsoft and Meta is allowing hate to spread
August 10, 2023 11:15It was one of the most pathetic, embarrassing spectacles of recent memory when Elon Musk challenged Mark Zuckerberg to a “cage match” and the two reportedly spoke with Dana White, the president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) about turning joke into reality.
Another challenge has just been issued, this time from lawyers related to X Corp (not a subsidiary of X-Men, but Musk’s business group), to the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), an anti-racism organisation. Seemingly unable to debate them in the court of public opinion, Musk’s outfit is seeking to bully CCDH into staying silent. The issue for Twitter/X is that the facts speak for themselves.
Research by the Antisemitism Policy Trust, undertaken prior to Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, found that there were two antisemitic tweets for every Jewish person in the UK, per year. In spite of his claims, further research post-Musk’s takeover by both the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and CCDH has shown there is now an increase in hate on the platform, something the White House has picked up on. Members of Twitter’s Trust and Safety board have resigned and the platform has been sued in Germany with more legal cases in the pipeline elsewhere. The platform is a total mess. With advertising revenue falling, Musk’s company appears to be attacking non-profits like CCDH, resorting to dehumanisation and lawfare. That attitude seems to be pervasive.
Appearing at a conference recently, one Twitter representative told parliamentarians from a public panel that it had maintained its Trust and Safety “trusted flagger” system, then confessed in private, moments later, that this was inaccurate.
There is unquestionably a “bro culture” in Tech — and the industry gender imbalance was evidenced quite spectacularly in the picture taken at the White House’s recent summit on AI. I have seen at first hand some of the arrogance and strong-arming. In a meeting with Microsoft, I pointed out to its UK leadership team that the Bing search engine it operates was directing users towards the term “Jews are b******s”. Some months later, I gave evidence to the Online Safety Bill Public Bill Committee and revealed that the same search engine was prompting people towards searches which returned homophobic results. Rather than express shock and focus on solutions, I was told by Microsoft that it was “disappointing” that I had spoken publicly about its failings. The clear inference was that my loyalty should have been to Microsoft, despite its failure to do a proper risk assessment of harm. I have had similarly unhappy conversations about harm with TikTok, YouTube and Meta.
Meanwhile, the tools the companies boast of for analysing harm — company transparency reports — are, according to Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, manipulated. Furthermore, the platforms simply put their fingers in their ears when asked to work with counter-hate organisations on moderator training.
The Online Safety Bill will be returning to the House of Commons in the next few months. Big Tech companies, having hired most of the UK’s expert legal counsels and employing lobbyists who boast ministers on their lists, are in some cases gleefully rubbing their hands, proclaiming that they already fulfil most of the requirements the Bill introduces. Efforts to have social media and other companies risk assess legal but harmful content are gone, and the requirements to allow researchers access to company information — something that Twitter is now charging for — are weak. Standing up to Big Tech, when in some cases companies boast bigger earnings than actual states, isn’t easy. However, there have been some wins, such as Baroness Nicky Morgan’s amendment which will ensure small, high harm platforms can be better regulated and which, if the government sees sense, will be retained.
This most recent move by Twitter/X against CCDH is the latest in a saga in which some social media platforms seek engagement with third sector groups to enhance their bona fides, whilst failing to tackle in earnest the hate spreading across their digital realms, and taking umbridge when the same groups highlight any issues in public.
What this legal wrangling from X does show is that the approach taken by CCDH and others is working. This is what we must do. Explaining to advertisers why their brands are at risk, holding a mirror up to companies doing harm, and explaining, in public, what is going wrong are key methods in fighting social media and other tech ills. Musk vs Zuckerberg is self-serving nonsense but big tech vs the world is a fight we need to win.
Danny Stone is CEO of the Antisemitism Policy Trust