What role should tech giants play in the fight against extremism?
a Wonk Bridge introduction the role of tech giants in the U.S. military-intelligence complex.
In the universe of George Orwell’s 1984, it is said that ‘It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen.’ It was dangerous because it would put you at the mercy of an all-powerful state and its surveillance agencies. In the real world in 2016 Orwell’s warning seems prescient given the revelations of Edward Snowden. The key difference however between Orwell’s fictional universe and our own real world, is that the superstate of Oceania wielded totalitarian power over media, whereas (in the West at least) state intelligence agencies must work with private corporations of the likes of Google, Facebook and Apple. This relationship has not always proved harmonious.
A critical nexus of politics and technology is the publishing, proliferation and accessibility of extremist content online.
Never before in the history of humanity have individuals so quickly and easily been able to find likeminded people who share their interests. In many ways this is great as it allows people to develop ideas and take part in activities with others who are passionate about the same things. The downsides though are that due to groupthink and herd mentality it can lead to members of those online communities legitimising — in their own minds — a belief or activity that the rest of society views as improper, undesirable and harmful. Online paedophilia rings are a prominent example of this type of network, though the tackling of paedophilia politically speaking, is made easy by the vast majority of people being united against it. In regards to extremist political and/or religious ideologies however the issue is murkier. Where does one draw the line between an expression of opinion and an incitement of violence? These problems are most apparent in the controversy surrounding the UK government’s Counter-Extremism Bill, the Prevent strategy and exactly how to define extremism.
In any case, Article 19 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights maintains that, ‘everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’ The Internet, which has allowed communications to easily transcend national borders, has become hugely significant of both the practical and symbolic terms of that right. And yet, there is a litany of examples where people voiced extremism ideas before going on to commit terrorism. Facebook was criticised because Michael Adebolajo had voiced his intent to ‘kill,’ before going on to murder Fusilier Lee Rigby. The Charleston shooter Dyllan Roof has been connected with the user profile ‘AryanBlood1488’ on Daily Stomer, a self-described ‘Alt-Right and Pro Genocide Website.’ Likewise, numerous accounts on Twitter have been linked to supporters and/or members of Daesh, or the so-called Islamic State.
The above speaks only to public communities and communications. It leaves out the aspect of private encrypted communication, which also relies on the tech giants. A prominent example is the tension between the FBI and Apple over unlocking the iPhone of Syed Farook, a perpetrator of the San Bernadino attack. Of course, terrorists also use the products and services of other companies such as Whatsapp, Snapchat, Telegram, Sony and others.
What is to be done then? Facebook and Twitter already conduct the mining of posts for marketing purposes and civil liberties groups and intelligence agencies continue to clash over dragnet surveillance measures. Even so, when somebody makes an extreme statement on a platform like Facebook or Twitter it is extremely difficult to distinguish between credible and non-credible threats. With regards to encryption, Apple’s refusal to unlock Farook’s iPhone was later nullified by the FBI’s own efforts at unlocking it. The overall debate is far from over though and earlier this year President Obama urged that tech companies must compromise on encryption while striking a balance with civil liberties. With regards to Google and other search engines, as mere indexers of the Internet they cannot be held accountable for what is hosted on it. They could though help with the promotion of counter-radicalisation content. This could be done by search engine optimisation (SEO) techniques.
In reality, there is no single magic act that will solve the problem. Nobody is advocating, and nor should they, that companies like Facebook or Apple run their own intelligence agencies. According to the rule of law it is the job of state intelligence agencies to protect society from the dangers of violent extremism. The world has changed at a remarkable pace since the end of the Cold War — most of that change technological — and intelligence agencies have endeavoured and sometimes struggled to keep up. The real challenge is to form a positive relationship with tech companies that works for all; striking a balance between civil liberties whilst guarding against violent extremism. That relationship will require debate, new legislation and the constant critique of the practicalities of that relationship by the civil society.
