Writing on the Wall: Decoding the FB Hate Speech Row

Decoding Facebook hate speech row

The recent controversy over Facebook’s alleged reluctance to filter out right-wing hate-speech against Muslims in India exposes the social media giant’s doublespeak on matters of social importance such as ethics, humanism and freedom of speech.

In case you’re waking up late, here’s a gist of what’s been reported on the recent Facebook hate speech controversy. According to the Wall Street Journal, Ankhi Das, Facebook’s top public policy executive in India, reportedly opposed banning a central minister from the social media platform for hate speech against Muslims in the country. Minister T Raja Singh had posted on Facebook against Rohingya Muslims. Singh had also called for razing mosques across the country. 

Facebook’s employees in charge of moderating the content and identifying hate speech found Raja Singh guilty of hate speech. However, the company did not take action against him because of the interference from its executive. 

This created a political furore and opposition parties alleged that BJP and RSS control Facebook and WhatsApp in India. Delhi Assembly’s committee for peace and harmony is probing Facebook on its alleged bias. Indian parliament’s Information Technology committee will also seek clarification from Facebook on hate speech.

Facebook’s tussles with Government agencies is not new. It had major run-ins with the US Government on issues related to Cambridge Analytica. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez had founder-CEO Mark Zuckerberg on the ropes when he appeared in US Congress. Content moderation is a thorny issue, not just for Facebook but for the entire social media. 

When social media promises to be the new utopia of personal liberty and free speech, the fine line between free speech and hate speech can often become tricky. Also important is the business interests of the company. Can the company hurt the fortunes of a party in power by hurting its political agenda? Can we entrust a social media platform with the task of speaking truth to power by compromising its business interests?

Both these questions are significant in the context of the revelations made by the Wall Street Journal on how Facebook’s public policy executive opposed any action against a BJP Minister. According to reports, internal efforts to make the platform less divisive has failed to take off in the past. Former employees of Facebook suggest that this is primarily because the public policy department has to balance the priorities of the platform with the interests of the government. 

Evidence suggests that in countries where the right-wing forces are in power, who rely on massive propaganda on social media, any attempt to rein in on hate speech could prove disadvantageous for Facebook. India is a significant market for Facebook and WhatsApp. The company would want to avoid any conflict with the ruling party that could unsettle its business ambitions in India.

India and Facebook

Around 280 million Facebook users as of April 2020 are from India. The second-placed US is at 190 million users. China, another potential market is out of reach of Facebook and the company has its eyes firmly on India which is evident in its 5.7-billion-dollar investment in Jio Platforms. Facebook’s Libra cryptocurrency and WhatsApp based payment system can make it big in the Indian market. 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has more than 45 million followers on Facebook which is a higher number than any other leader in the world. BJP also has around 16 million followers on Facebook which is way ahead of the number for political parties in the US. This would also mean that a significant amount of content and traffic on the Facebook platform are provided by these users as well.  

BJP legislators Anant Kumar Hegde and Kapil Mishra got away with communal remarks on Facebook. Twitter had flagged Anant Kumar Hegde’s communal tweets as hate speech and deactivated his account. Facebook removed such posts only after the news of bias came out. Kapil Mishra’s video which allegedly triggered large-scale violence in Delhi was taken down by Facebook.

Despite this, his followers on Facebook increased by a large amount. This goes more in line with what even Facebook thought about its algorithms – its divisive nature. Facebook did not want to be ‘paternalistic’ and stopped short of its efforts to improve fact-checking and content moderation.

But the company is now facing pressure from its employees on the India issue. Facebook’s internal employee group wrote a letter demanding more transparency concerning policy enforcement on political bigwigs in India. The letter points out an organizational flow that puts content policy and government interactions under the same vertical. This letter addressed to “Facebook leadership” also demanded clarification on certain actions concerning hate speech against Muslims in India, allegedly posted by ruling party legislators. It will be interesting to see how Facebook responds to this letter and what actions will be taken. Meanwhile, the company has to explain itself in front of a parliamentary committee and another set up by Delhi Assembly.

Free speech and Facebook

Mark Zuckerberg wanted Governments to take an active role in regulating speech on the Internet. Zuckerberg admitted the responsibility that companies like Facebook had towards society and called for active involvement from Governments. He acknowledged that given the volume of data Facebook is likely to make mistakes. 

The founder-CEO also admitted that Facebook is having large power over speech. But he refused to take decisions on introducing checks and balances citing that it is better done with an independent body in collaboration with the government. While this idea of regulation looks admirable, it has its critics. With the kind of user base that Facebook holds, it can wield influence on framing the rules of the game.

So, with Facebook CEO calling for regulation, are we looking at free speech in all its glory in the age of the internet? Perhaps not. That is because the business interests of these platforms come in the way of the glorious ideas of liberty and free speech. An extremist group pushing its agenda using Facebook is not doing it against the platform’s algorithms. It is putting those algorithms to best use by grabbing attention and bringing more and more users on these platforms. 

It can bring together white supremacists, lynch mobs claiming to be gau rakshaks, militant groups across the globe as well. Checks and balances become important when anyone who can have an internet connection can also have an opinion and can freely transmit it. Algorithms by design may not be able to filter out what civilized societies do not require. The Facebook example tells us we cannot leave it entirely to technology. On technology and free speech, we have more questions than answers at this point.

One thought on “Writing on the Wall: Decoding the FB Hate Speech Row

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.