‘Assess Human Agency Behind Algorithms’: Ex Civil Servants Write to Mark Zuckerberg

The letter urged the Facebook CEO to not let business prospects in the future deter the implementation of its policy against hate speech, noting that this could lead to hate crimes. 

New Delhi: A group of former civil servants has penned an open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg expressing concern over recent reports that the social media giant had failed to take action against a BJP leader for hate speech.

On August 14, The Wall Street Journal reported that Facebook India opposed applying its hate speech rules to the BJP’s T. Raja Singh at the behest of Ankhi Das, who is Facebook’s top public policy executive in India.

In its letter, the Constitutional Conduct, a civil society group made up of retired civil servants, noted that it was “impartial and committed” to the Indian constitution and was writing to a “non-Indian body” for the first time to register its disapproval against Facebook’s alleged action over hate speech.

Pointing out that hate speech threatens to adversely affect democratic rights, the letter highlighted that Facebook defined hate speech as a direct attack on people for characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. The group further pointed out that Facebook’s inaction against T. Raja Singh and others for their “derogatory comments” against people belonging to a different religion and accusing Muslims of spreading COVID-19 was in contravention on its own policy.

Watch | ‘Senior Facebook Execs Associated Themselves With Modi Even Before BJP’s Victory in 2014’

The signatories also held that they were dismayed to learn that public policy head of Facebook India had consciously opposed applying Facebook’s hate speech rules to members of the ruling BJP for fear of jeopardising the company’s business prospects in India.

The letter also called attention to the rise in religious unrest across the nation in light of the recently enacted Citizenship Amendment Act, the proposed National Registry of Citizens, the communal riots that took place in February 2020 in the national capital and surge in ‘cow vigilantism’ and instances of lynching of members of the minority community. “Many of these crimes have been instigated through hate speech spread through various communication channels, such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and Twitter,” the signatories said and added that, despite being aware of it, Facebook had failed to implement its policy to curb hate speech in a non-partisan manner.

Noting that such behaviour on the part of Facebook had become a subject of debate in other countries as well, the group of retired civil servants noted that to “blame the algorithms of artificial intelligence is both to evade corporate responsibility and to deny the human agency involved in the framing of those very algorithms”.

The letter concluded by urging Zuckerberg to undertake “serious efforts to audit the implementation of Facebook’s hate speech policy in India” and not let business prospects in the future deter the implementation of its policy against hate speech and posts which can lead to hate crimes.

The entire text of the letter has been reproduced below.

§

An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Facebook

24 August, 2020

Dear Mr Zuckerberg,

We are a group of former civil servants of India belonging to the All India and Central Services, who have worked, in the course of our careers, with the Central Government as well as different State Governments of India. As a group, we have no affiliation with any political party but believe in being neutral, impartial and committed to the Indian Constitution. We have, in the past, written to the government and government institutions whenever we felt that the democratic rights of Indian citizens were being violated. We have not, so far, written to any non-Indian body. We are writing to you now, in a departure from our usual practice, because certain actions (or the absence of certain actions) by Facebook in their operations in India have thrown into danger some of the fundamental rights of the people of India. Our attention has been drawn to this by an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) dated August 14th, 2020.

Most democratic countries assure their citizens of several basic rights and freedoms. Both the United States, the country of which you are a citizen, and India, do the same. Democratic rights can be adversely affected by hate speech, as you very well know. Which is why Facebook has made it part of its policy not to allow hate speech. Facebook defines hate speech as a direct attack on people for characteristics such as “race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender or gender identity and serious disabilities or diseases .”

Given this clear definition in your own policy, we are surprised that Facebook did not take action against some clear and serial offenders in India – persons like T. Raja Singh and a few others – for their derogatory comments against people belonging to a different religion, accusing Muslims of spreading Covid 19, indulging in ’love jehad’ and various other misdemeanours. What is striking about Facebook’s leniency towards these persons is that all of them happen to be members of the political party in power. That Facebook did consider the posts to be offensive is apparent from the fact that these posts were deleted on Aug 17, after the WSJ wrote to Facebook seeking its comments. We are dismayed to learn, again from the WSJ article, that the Public Policy Head of Facebook India consciously opposed applying Facebook’s hate speech rules to members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) because doing so would adversely affect the company’s business prospects in India.

Mr Zuckerberg, you surely cannot be unaware that religious unrest has become a serious problem in India. The recently passed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), coupled with the proposed National Registry of Citizens (NRC), threatens to take away the citizenship of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and other minorities in India and put them in detention centres.

A protester attends a protest against the CAA in New Delhi, India, December 14, 2019. Photo: Reuters/Adnan Abidi

You cannot also be ignorant of the communal riots that took place in Delhi in February 2020, in which 53 persons were killed, two thirds of them Muslims. Several cases of lynching and torture, primarily of Muslims and Dalits (oppressed castes and groups), have also occurred in India in recent years. The majority of these are related to ‘cow vigilantism’, i.e. religious extremists resorting to violence in apparent efforts to protect cows from being illegally slaughtered.

Many of these crimes have been instigated through hate speech spread through various communication channels, such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and Twitter. Despite being aware of this, Facebook has failed to implement its own policy of discouraging hate speech in India, or has implemented it in a clearly partisan manner. That this seems to have been done to protect Facebook’s commercial interests is even more reprehensible.

We note that such behaviour on Facebook’s part has become a subject of debate in other countries as well. Commercial interests at the cost of human lives? If these are the crass calculations Facebook indulges in, it is no surprise that the calculus of hate is spreading like a virus in many parts of the world. To blame the algorithms of artificial intelligence is both to evade corporate responsibility and to deny the human agency involved in the framing of those very algorithms.

We are writing to you in the expectation that you will make serious efforts to audit the implementation of Facebook’s hate speech policy in India and, while such an audit is under way, ensure that the present Public Policy Head of Facebook, India, is not in a position to influence the investigations. We also fervently hope that in future, you will not let your company’s business prospects stand in the way of implementing your own policy against hate speech and posts which can lead to hate crimes. This is a sure way of demonising minorities and inflicting violence upon them while undermining the democratic and secular basis of the Indian Constitution.

Yours sincerely,

Constitutional Conduct Group

( 54 signatories as below )

Salahuddin Ahmad

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan

Shafi Alam

IPS (Retd.)

Former Director General, National Crime Records Bureau, GoI

K. Saleem Ali

IPS (Retd.)

Former Special Director, CBI, GoI

Vappala Balachandran

IPS (Retd.)

Former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, GoI

Gopalan Balagopal

IAS (Retd.)

Former Special Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal

Chandrashekhar Balakrishnan

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Coal, GoI

Sharad Behar

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chief Secretary, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh

Aurobindo Behera

IAS (Retd.)

Former Member, Board of Revenue, Govt. of Odisha

Sundar Burra

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra

P.R. Dasgupta

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chairman, Food Corporation of India, GoI

Nitin Desai

IES (Retd.)

Former Secretary and Chief Economic Adviser, Ministry of Finance, GoI

M.G. Devasahayam

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Govt. of Haryana

Sushil Dubey

IFS (Retd.)

Former Ambassador to Sweden

K.P. Fabian

IFS (Retd.)

Former Ambassador to Italy

Prabhu Ghate

IAS (Retd.)

Former Addl. Director General, Department of Tourism, GoI

Gourisankar Ghosh

IAS (Retd.)

Former Mission Director, National Drinking Water Mission, GoI

Suresh K. Goel

IFS (Retd.)

Former Director General, Indian Council of Cultural Relations, GoI

H.S. Gujral

IFoS (Retd.)

Former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of Punjab

Meena Gupta

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests, GoI

Wajahat Habibullah

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, GoI and Chief Information Commissioner

Siraj Hussain 

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Department of Agriculture, GoI

Brijesh Kumar

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Department of Information Technology, GoI

Aloke B. Lal

IPS (Retd.)

Former Director General (Prosecution), Govt. of Uttarakhand

Subodh Lal

IPoS (Resigned)

Former Deputy Director General, Ministry of Communications, GoI

Harsh Mander

IAS (Retd.)

Govt. of Madhya Pradesh

Lalit Mathur

IAS (Retd.)

Former Director General, National Institute of Rural Development, GoI

Aditi Mehta

IAS (Retd.)

Former Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan

Sonalini Mirchandani

IFS (Resigned)

GoI

Noor Mohammad

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, National Disaster Management Authority, Govt. of India

Deb Mukharji

IFS (Retd.)

Former High Commissioner to Bangladesh and former Ambassador to Nepal

Nagalsamy

IA&AS (Retd.)

Former Principal Accountant General, Tamil Nadu & Kerala

P.G.J. Nampoothiri

IPS (Retd.)

Former Director General of Police, Govt. of Gujarat

Alok Perti

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Ministry of Coal, GoI

M.Y. Rao

IAS (Retd.)

Satwant Reddy

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Chemicals and Petrochemicals, GoI

Vijaya Latha Reddy

IFS (Retd.)

Former Deputy National Security Adviser, GoI

Julio Ribeiro

IPS (Retd.)

Former Adviser to Governor of Punjab & former Ambassador to Romania

Aruna Roy

IAS (Resigned)

Manabendra N. Roy

IAS (Retd.)

Former Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal

Deepak Sanan

IAS (Retd.)

Former Principal Adviser (AR) to Chief Minister, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh

N.C. Saxena

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Planning Commission, GoI

A. Selvaraj

IRS (Retd.)

Former Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Chennai, GoI

Ardhendu Sen

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal

Abhijit Sengupta

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Ministry of Culture, GoI

Aftab Seth

IFS (Retd.)

Former Ambassador to Japan

Ashok Kumar Sharma

IFoS (Retd.)

Former MD, State Forest Development Corporation, Govt. of Gujarat

Ashok Kumar Sharma

IFS (Retd.)

Former Ambassador to Finland and Estonia

Navrekha Sharma

IFS (Retd.)

Former Ambassador to Indonesia

Raju Sharma

IAS (Retd.)

Former Member, Board of Revenue, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh

Jawhar Sircar

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Ministry of Culture, GoI, & former CEO, Prasar Bharati

Narendra Sisodia

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Ministry of Finance, GoI

Parveen Talha

IRS (Retd.)

Former Member, Union Public Service Commission

Geetha Thoopal

IRAS (Retd.)

Former General Manager, Metro Railway, Kolkata

Hindal Tyabji

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chief Secretary rank, Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir

Facebook’s Uneven Enforcement of Hate Speech Rules in India Highlighted in New Study

A research report by advocacy group Equality Labs has concluded that the social networking giant has done little to effectively moderate speech that violates the company’s own guidelines.

New Delhi: Facebook failed to permanently delete hundreds of posts that targeted caste and religious minorities in India even after they were reported to the social networking giant, a new research report by a South Asian American human rights organisation has claimed.

Equality Labs, an advocacy group that focuses on technology and human rights, studied the process these posts go through after being reported over a period of four months in 2018.

A team of 20 international researchers – that included Dalits, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and others – systematically recorded 1,000 Facebook posts that they found to be in violation of the platform’s community standards.

Also read: On Social Media, Hate Speech Is Ok – Reporting It May Cost You

Their findings? Over 40% of all the posts that were removed – after they reported them – were restored after a period of 90 days on average. An overwhelming majority of the posts that were restored were Islamophobic in nature.

The research group selected posts that they deemed to be characteristic of ‘Tier-1’ hate speech, which constitutes grounds for immediate removal from the platform.

Facebook defines Tier 1 hate speech as :

“Attacks, which target a person or group of people who share one of the above-listed characteristics or immigration status (including all subsets except those described as having carried out violent crimes or sexual offences), where attack is defined as any violent speech or support in written or visual form.

Dehumanising speech such as reference or comparison to: Insects, Animals that are culturally perceived as intellectually or physically inferior, Filth, bacteria, disease and faeces, Sexual predator, Subhumanity, Violent and sexual criminals, Other criminals (including but not limited to “thieves”, “bank robbers” or saying that “all [protected characteristic or quasi-protected characteristic] are ‘criminals'”)

Mocking the concept, events or victims of hate crimes, even if no real person is depicted in an image

Designated dehumanising comparisons in both written and visual form”

Despite the clearly mentioned guidelines, this is one example of a post that was initially removed but later restore:

Translation: Those illegitimate children whose mothers took their salwars off after seeing swords in the hands of Mughals today proudly claim to be Muslim: Do you agree with Yogiji’s statement?)

“All community standards violations identified were reported to Facebook using the user reporting mechanisms and Facebook’s response systematically tracked. Through this approach, we created a data set of over 1000 violating Facebook posts, spanning 4 key Indian languages,” one of the researchers told The Wire.

The report states that of all the hate speech posts reported, astonishingly, over 90% continue to exist on the platform and these posts advocate violence, use slurs and are characteristic of the Tier 1 hate speech standards mentioned above.

Also read: Amid Growing Online Hate, India Must Reconsider Immunities to Facebook, Twitter

“By tracking Facebook’s response to our violation reports, we were also able to gain significant insights into Facebook’s moderation performance. Our review of a 1000+ moderation decisions suggests that there are significant issues with the moderation process as it affects India and makes Indian caste, religious, gender, and queer minorities as well as civil society activists and journalists extremely vulnerable on these platforms,” the researcher added.

Not enough languages

Another problem that the report – which is titled ‘Facebook India, Towards the Tipping Point of Violence’ – brings out is that the platform’s hate speech guidelines are not translated into local languages commonly used in India, even though the organisation had engaged with Facebook on the issue of localisation on earlier instances.

At present, the Facebook pages that lay out community standards for Indian languages often present just the headings in a regional language while the rest of the text is in English.

The report slams Facebook for its failure to protect users: “How can Facebook guarantee the safety of all of its users if the basic community standards are not available for all to read?….Safety cannot be an afterthought — it must be central to the production workflow”.

Castiesm is another area that the study examines. According to the report, the rate of removal for reported posts was the lowest in the casteism category.

Here’s an instance of a group that continues to exist on Facebook despite being reported repeatedly:

An example of content that targets a specific caste on Facebook. Credit: Equality Labs

An example of content that targets a specific caste on Facebook. Credit: Equality Labs

Misogyny and posts that promote online violence against women continue to plague the platform, as do transphobic and homophobic posts. There are also posts targeting Christian minorities in India, the report notes.

‘This report is a snap shot of our advocacy that was meant to uncover what is going on with their (Facebook’s) content moderation. The report  is a beginning of a necessary conversation to allow more Indians more insight into how Facebook works, how so much hate speech has become normalised, and the categories of hate speech that are now commonplace. There is so much of this content in many of our languages that it was not hard to find it is omnipresent. Our study was analysing Facebook’s response. Our secondary goal was to provide the content analysis,” said Thenmozhi Soundararajan, executive director of Equality labs.

Also read: Why Facebook Is Losing the War on Hate Speech in Myanmar

“This data set also provides a unique window into the type of problematic content that circulates on Facebook during the pre-election period in India, and the type of rhetoric and attacks that Indian minorities have become normalised against,” she added.

In a separate response to The Wire, Equality Labs said that although their research is only a small window into the larger problem of moderation, the findings raise critical concerns which they believe would warrant a thorough audit of the company’s moderation process in the country.

“This audit team must have clear competencies in caste, religious, and gender/queer minorities and include members of Indian minorities in its composition,” the organisation noted.

Mariya Salim is a researcher and women’s rights activist.