Polls on the heels: Meta, Google face political heat

The INDIA opposition bloc has last week written to Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai, CEOs of Meta and Google, regarding their alleged involvement in promoting "communal hatred" on their social media platforms in the country.

Citing the “exhaustive investigations” by The Washington Post that raised concerns over dubious content moderation policy of Facebook, WhatsApp, and YouTube that allegedly favoured the ruling political party, the alliance of 28 opposition parties in the country has asked both tech giants to ensure neutrality during the upcoming general elections.

Letter by INDIA parties to @Facebook's Mr. Mark Zuckerberg (@finkd) citing the exhaustive investigations by the @washingtonpost that Meta is culpable of abetting social disharmony and inciting communal hatred in India.

[Letter Below] pic.twitter.com/2wnUa5xHbz

— Mallikarjun Kharge (@kharge) October 12, 2023

The Washington Post (WP) report has claimed that under India’s pressure, Facebook has let propaganda and hate speech thrive. “The interviews and documents show that local Facebook executives failed to take down videos and posts of Hindu nationalist leaders, even when they openly called for killing Indian Muslims,” the report alleged.

Another WP report on cow vigilante Monu Monesar alleged how he had received a “Silver Creator” award from YouTube for reaching 100,000 subscribers and even has an Instagram “verified” badge despite being accused of live streaming his attacks on Indian Muslims on Facebook.

e4m contacted Meta India and Google India to seek their comments on the INDIA alliance's letter and allegations of biasness and inaction against hate speech and disinformation but is yet to receive a response despite several reminders over the week. The story will be updated as and when they respond.

Past accusations

It is to be noted that this is not the first time Meta or Google have been accused of toeing the lines of the ruling party. Facebook, WhatsApp and YouTube and even Twitter (X) have been criticized for a long time for allegedly shaping political narratives.

A 2019 report published by Al Jazeera and non-profit The Reporters’ Collective claimed that Meta India allowed a large number of ghost and surrogate advertisers to fund BJP’s election campaigns in 2019 and boosted its visibility on the platform while blocking all ads that promoted opposition parties.

The report also accused Facebook of providing advertisements to BJP at cheaper rates. The average price charged by Facebook to the BJP and its candidates to show an advertisement one million times was Rs 41,844. The opposition Congress, however, Rs 53,776, almost 29 per cent more, for the same number of views.

Their investigation covered 10 elections held in India between February 2019 and November 2020 analyzing more than five lakh political advertisements placed on Facebook.

Incidentally, the Supreme Court of India had also raised concerns that Facebook’s policies and algorithms threaten electoral politics and democracy. While rejecting Facebook’s contentions that it is a neutral and blind platform, the Supreme Court had said in 2021, “Election and voting processes, the very foundation of a democratic government, stand threatened by social media manipulation.” The top court made these observations in its judgement dismissing Meta’s plea challenging the Delhi Assembly summons to appear before it as witness in connection with the north-east Delhi riots in 2020 riots and complaints that Facebook had been used as a platform to spread hate.

Shaping narrative

India has close to 700 million internet users, as per the latest TRAI report. WhatsApp has 600 million (60 crore or roughly half of the population) users. Politicians across the political spectrum use these platforms diligently to further their narratives across different communities.

Shradha Agarwal, Co-Founder & CEO, Grapes, opines, “Social media is undoubtedly an important platform for election campaigning these days. Considering the humongous size, it’s only natural to have the flip side.”

The fake news or misinformation generated by individuals is comparatively easier to counteract but when generated by hate groups with targeted malicious intent it could considerably hamper the democratic process, Agarwal noted.

“This issue also underscores the broader problem of how algorithms can “unintentionally” polarize content and influence public discourse. It's essential to address these concerns to maintain a balanced and healthy online environment,” says Kalyan Kumar, Co-Founder and CEO of KlugKlug.

“Companies and social media firms driven by advertising incentives often rely on negativity and divisive content to keep users glued to their platforms or let’s just call it the algorithmic bias. While positivity and virality have their merits, it's the negative content that truly engages users, leading to increased time spent on these platforms and, consequently, higher ad revenues. This situation can be seen as an unintended social experiment in which users are unwittingly involved,” Kumar added.

Agarwal however contends that singular studies on alleged biases by the platforms might not be strongly advisable. She points out, “Recent studies have also shown that conservatives and liberals consume very different political news. In fact, there is rarely any overlap in the political content consumed by the two sides.”

But the fact remains that the algorithm of these platforms shows only what you enjoy. It hardly ever goes out of a user’s preference circle to bring them any “new” content. Most people hold very rigid political views, and the content curated for each individual on social media further affirm these beliefs, Agarwal explains.

As for Lloyd Mathias, Angel Investor, “There is no doubt that social media platforms are important tools to shape a political narrative these days considering their scale and reach. However, these platforms don't spread hate or disinformation themselves. It’s the undesirable elements who do so.”

Mathias explains, “We can’t expect social media platforms to have the editorial oversight that media houses have. If they curate the content, they lose their identity and become a media platform. The accusation that their algorithm is skewed towards conservatism is a matter of debate. Fundamentally, they are commercial ventures and hence tend to take sides of establishments.”

Business matters

Mass polarization is on the rise in the United States and other parts of the world as well due to personalized content recommendations on these platforms, media experts say.

A study on YouTube users by Brookings Institution in October 2022, an American think tank, claimed the platform pushes people into “ideological echo chambers”. The study claimed that regardless of the ideology of the study participant, the algorithm pushes all users in a “moderately conservative direction”. The study, however, couldn't establish that it happened because of algorithm manipulation by the tech giant or because YouTube’s library was full of conservative content. 

Meta received severe criticism and allegations of playing a major role in the Capitol riot in the US last year after the country’s presidential election.

Last week only, the European Commission (EC) sought details from Meta under the European Union's Digital Service Act (DSA) regarding the steps it has taken to comply with obligations related to risk assessments and mitigation measures to safeguard the integrity of elections that is slated next year. The Election Commission has also sought details about measures the platform has taken with regards to the dissemination and amplification of illegal content and disinformation, following the terrorist attacks across Israel by Hamas.

It is noteworthy that Meta has apologized for adding "terrorist" to the biographies of some Instagram users describing themselves as Palestinian, as per a BBC report. 

Between Law & Self-regulation

So far, leading social media platforms are largely governed by self-regulatory guidelines that allow them to withhold, block or remove users who share offensive, violative content or wrongful information. 

Under the Information Technology Act, 2000, an intermediary (social media platform) is not liable for third-party information that it holds or transmits. However, to claim such exemption, it must fulfill due diligence requirements under the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which directs social media firms to establish grievance redressal mechanisms to resolve user complaints.

The intermediaries are also required to respect users’ fundamental right to speech and expression (Article 19).  This means that they will have to strike a balance between content moderation and the user's right to speech.

“Intermediaries may not be the most appropriate entity to decide whether the removal of any content violates a citizen’s fundamental right, as such questions require judicial capability and are typically decided by Courts,” a legal expert claims.

Meanwhile, the IT Rules were amended early this year to add a provision of a “fact-check unit” which will have sweeping powers to determine what is “fake or false or misleading”, with respect to “any business of the Central Government” and direct the social media companies to remove them.

At the same time, Section 79 of the IT Act allows intermediaries to avoid liabilities for what third parties post on their websites.

The Editors Guild of India and the Association of Indian Magazines among others have challenged the controversial amendment in the Bombay HC, which is hearing the case.