On 10 October, The Wire published a controversial exclusive article accusing Facebook and Instagram’s parent company, Meta, of unjustifiably taking down content based on reports from public figures.
What followed was a scathing back-and-forth tussle between The Wire and Meta, with the tech giant insisting that the news outlet had cited fake or doctored communications in its article.
The Wire eventually took down the article over credibility concerns and apologised for its publication. Thereafter, the leader of the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party’s (BJP) IT cell, Amit Malviya, initiated a criminal and civil case against the media outlet for defamation.
Regardless of the credibility of The Wire’s article, the controversy has brought to light the need for Indian authorities to take closer consideration of Meta’s XCheck, or “Cross Check”, feature.
Where to even begin with this story?! X-check has nothing to do with the ability to report posts. The posts in question were surfaced for review by automated systems, not humans. And the underlying documentation appears to be fabricated.
— Andy Stone (@andymstone) October 11, 2022
Concern surrounding the XCheck feature is not new, with Facebook having first introduced it back in 2013. However, it was only brought into the public eye in 2018 after Britain’s Channel 4 News released a report raising questions about the programme. Facebook downplayed the programme’s importance, saying it is merely a second review for reported posts of prominent users, including public figures, politicians, and even news organisations.
In a 2021 report by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), however, it was discovered that Meta has an elite list of around 5.8 million (as of 2020) “newsworthy” and “influential or popular” accounts that are allowed to flout community standards by posting content that cannot be taken down or can report content that is immediately taken down.
In this regard, Human Rights Watch has claimed that XCheck prioritises the rights of “celebrities, politicians, and other high profile users” over those of “ordinary people,” particularly the most vulnerable communities.
These allegations prompted Meta Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg to publicly reassure that public figures are subject to the same community standards as Facebook’s 2.85 billion other users.
The Wire, however, asserted that the XCheck programme goes “beyond what Meta has admitted in public,” generating concern about the programme’s compliance with Indian laws.
I wanted to set the record straight about two stories run this week by @thewire_in with untrue claims about Meta’s content moderation operations and processes. tl;dr these stories are fabrications. (1/6)
— Guy Rosen (@guyro) October 11, 2022
Crucially, Meta’s XCheck programme violates the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rule, 2021, which was introduced to ensure oversight in such questionable exercises of power by social media and tech giants. Rule 4(1)(d) mandates that intermediaries publish a compliance report detailing reports received and actions taken.
Yet, to date, details about the XCheck programme have not been communicated to authorities. In fact, Meta’s own Oversight Board, which users use to challenge takedown orders, has raised concern about Meta not being “fully forthcoming” and withholding information about the programme during its internal investigation.
However, the Indian government has strategically turned a blind eye to these violations. Facebook whistleblower Sophie Zang, for instance, claimed in June that the Indian government is deliberately restricting her from testifying before the Parliament’s standing committee on communication and information technology to “manipulate” public discourse.
This is the world social media has built.
— Sophie Zhang（张学菲） (@szhang_ds) October 17, 2022
India is becoming more and more divided/separated. Nor is it unique; the same is happening worldwide.
We cannot return to the paradigms we left behind in the past, but nor is the present sustainable. Where do we go forward from here?
Admittedly, both Meta and the Indian government have legitimate reasons for allowing the programme to continue to operate without strict checks and balances.
For Meta, it enables certain verified users to expeditiously report and facilitate the takedown of harmful content without requiring employees with a lack of expertise on the issue to be the determining factor, saving time, money, and resources. It also guards against frivolous takedown requests against public figures.
Meanwhile, for the Indian government, the programme allows officials to expeditiously take down misinformation, disinformation, or any other content that can disrupt public order or public health. Officials and entities on the list can sidestep tedious Meta processes and take immediate action against potentially disruptive or dangerous content, rather than allowing such content to fester, spread, and undermine national security.
Nevertheless, the lack of transparency from both the Indian government and Meta remains a huge concern. There is no public information on how the list members are selected or what kind of powers they have as “elite” users. Given the importance that social media platforms hold in upholding citizens’ right to freedom and expression, a privately-run mechanism’s influence over the protection of this fundamental constitutional right is a giant red flag.
The Wire's reports are based upon documents that are by now clearly faked.
— Sophie Zhang（张学菲） (@szhang_ds) October 12, 2022
But how did we get to this point? Newsroom incentives mean that press outlets face increasing pressure to write hip exciting articles that fit into the zeitgeist. Rigor doesn't get clicks or cash. https://t.co/CJoDGNO7we
For instance, while The Wire’s claims about the number of reports taken down on Malviya’s orders have been declared to be false, he has not denied being a part of the elite list. Concerningly, he has just a few thousand followers but is empowered to shape public discourse. Apart from his minimal following on social media, Malviya also does not hold any official position in the Indian government. He is not a cabinet member or a part of any ministry that could warrant this power.
Moreover, Malviya has previously been flagged by Twitter for posting “manipulated media” in 2020. Then, in September of this year, Malviya posted a video of a rally by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Mangalore that was later discovered to be footage from an event in 2019, despite the BJP IT cell chief presenting it as a recently-concluded event.
Yet, despite this questionable record and commitment to the truth, Malviya has been granted “elite” powers on Facebook, wherein his decisions are not even subjected to a second review. Although the impact of his inclusion on this elite list remains unclear at this stage, it could ostensibly be used to stifle opposition politicians and supporters, which could have an indirect impact on elections.
Reports suggest that this list includes former United States (US) President Donald Trump, who became increasingly infamous for posting disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election. His ability to shape discourse and public understanding of topics such as COVID-19 vaccines and treatments as well as democracy and electoral integrity had a seismic impact on US politics that is still being felt to this day, indicating just how harmful unrestricted use of Facebook can be.
There are also reports of Meta complying with directions given by the Israeli and Thai authorities, further widening concerns about Facebook working hand-in-glove with governments worldwide for its own commercial benefit and to the detriment of users’—and voters’—rights.
At its best, the XCheck platform can be an effective tool to protect national security. At its worst, though, it can be used to manipulate public discourse and elections. Both of these are undoubtedly attractive options for any government around the world. The Indian government, however, must resist these impulses to demand that Meta institute independent checks and review mechanisms to uphold the country’s laws and protect its citizens’ rights.