The Delhi Assembly’s Committee on Peace and Harmony constituted to probe into the Delhi riots that took place in February 2020 grilled senior executives of Facebook India on Thursday for its alleged role in failing to curb provocative and inflammatory content that led to the riots.
The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi in March 2020 had constituted a Committee on Peace and Harmony to recommend suitable measures to defuse the situation and restore harmony among religious communities, linguistic communities or social groups.
Facebook India’s (Meta platforms) Public Policy Director Shivnath Thukral and its Associate General Counsel Saanjh Purohit deposed before the Committee chaired by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Raghav Chadha on Thursday. Representatives of Facebook India were first summoned to appear before the panel on November 2, but the hearing was later postponed to November 18 on a request from the company.
The proceedings of the Committee which were live streamed on Thursday were significant as the public for the first time witnessed law makers in India question officials of the social media giant over a host of pertinent issues- the definition of ‘hate speech’ adopted by the company, its system of fact checking, underlying commercial interests and the religious diversity of its employees.
Importantly, the Committee asked Facebook India to furnish records of users’ reports (complaints) on the content posted on the platform one month prior and two months after the occurrence of Delhi riots in February 2020 which had claimed over 53 lives.
The Supreme Court in July this year had refused to quash the summons issued to Facebook India Managing Director Ajit Mohan by the Peace and Harmony Committee his appearance in an enquiry related to the Delhi Riots.
« The capital of the country can ill-afford any repetition of the occurrence and thus, the role of Facebook in this context must be looked into by the powers that be. It is in this background that the Assembly sought to constitute a peace and harmony committee – whether it has the legislative competence or not is an aspect we will deal with it under the relevant head. The Assembly being a local legislative and governance body, it cannot be said that their concerns were misconceived or illegitimate, » the judgment had stated.
However, the Court had held that the Delhi Assembly’s enquiry cannot encroach into « prohibited domains » of law and order and criminal prosecution, as they are subjects under the domain of the Union Government. Thus, liberty had been granted to the representatives of the social media intermediary to deny answering any question by the Committee if it falls within the prohibited domains.
We cannot be subjected to unfair trials based on selectively leaked documents: Facebook India
At the outset, Thukral acknowledged that as a company that connects over 3 billion people across the world, people have a right to hold them accountable. However, he expressed reservations to the fact that the company in recent times has been subjected to unfair scrutiny.
« As a consequential platform we believe that we should be scrutinised. Good faith criticism helps us get better but we cannot be subjected to unfair trials based on selectively leaked documents, which paint a false picture of our company. The debates mischaracterise our intent, the work we have done around the safety of our users and unfortunately paints a very prejudiced picture about the company« , he stated.
Enumerating further on the measures undertaken to abate hate speech and misinformation, the Facebook representative further informed that 13 billon dollars had been invested since 2016 in this regard. It was further stated that nearly 40 thousand people are employed by the company to ensure safety of its users.
« We set the standard for transparency with our enforcement reports released both globally and locally herein in India. We have also pioneered the Oversight Board as a model of self -regulation. We have empowered users with tools to control who they interact with on our platforms. We have continuously built tools or made product changes to reduce friction and curb the spread of problematic content« , he averred further.
Religious diversity in the company
Enquiring about the religious diversity of the company’s employees, Chadha questioned Facebook’s representatives,
« What is the religious diversity as far as the composition of these teams are concerned? The public policy team first and then of course the overall employee strength of Facebook India? »
To this, Thukral responded that since Indian laws do not permit differentiation on the basis of religious affiliation, such questions are not asked during the process of hiring of employees.
However Chadha quizzed further,
« I fully agree with you as far as hiring is concerned that should certainly not be a criteria and I am sure that is not that criteria. But now that you have hired these people just for the understanding of this committee say you have a handful of people working under you directly in the public policy team, how many of them would be classified as persons belonging to a religious minority in India? »
Refusing to provide a straightforward answer, Thukral stressed again that no such record is maintained in adherence to local laws.
Composition of Board of Directors
Probing further about the composition of the Board of Directors of the company, Chadha asked whether the Board of Directors comprise people belonging to civil society who have experience in working in areas such as social cohesion. Refusing to divulge any specific names of the members, the Policy Head responded that the company has an extensive programmes to engage with people in the civil society especially leading think tanks on a range of issues.
Ownership pattern
Enquiring further about the ownership pattern of Facebook India, the panel questioned,
« Would it be correct to say that no Indian entity has ownership in Facebook India and it is completely owned by Facebook Inc based in the US?
In response Thukral stated, « We are a global platform so our ownership is with the Global Inc but there is a company in India as required »
Questioning further, Chadha emphasised, « Who owns the equity in the company? Is it a wholly owned subsidiary of Facebook Inc or do you have Indian entities? It could be a person, it could be a legal entity that holds equity shares in Facebook India »
« I have to check but it is my understanding that the Indian entity is owned by the global cooperation as well« , the Facebook representative responded.
Accordingly, the company was directed to get back to the Committee on the aforementioned queries.
Timeline for addressing complaints flagged by users
Clarifying the social media’s stance on the procedure for addressing complaints flagged by users, the Facebook representative further stated that both human intervention as well as machine learning tools are used to address such grievances.
« We have 97 percent proactive detection rate which means 97 percent of the time we are able to catch this through our machine learning tools. Prevalence of hate speech has come down to 0.03 percent which would mean if you come across 10 thousand pieces of content on your feed only 3 will turn out to be problematic. It is an ongoing process, safety will never be a static issue« , Thukral stated further.
The panel further enquired the timeline adhered to for verification of the complaints that have been flagged. Accordingly, they were informed that complaints have to be acknowledged within 24 hours.
« When there is an user report, as per the applicable laws there is an acknowledgement within 24 hours. We follow the laws that have come by though the IT Rules. If I am right, we have to respond within 15 days. More importantly if you see the enforcement report, the data point, is in September we removed 82000 pieces of content and this was again at our end« , Thukral informed further.
Record of content removed subsequent to filing of user complaints
Chadha further asked whether the company maintains a record of the content that has been removed subsequent to a complaint being filed. In response, the Facebook representative informed that the company does publish India compliance reports which contains details of the content taken down.
« I am not referring to the compliance reports, I am referring to a journal or a record that you maintain of all the content removed », Chadha asked.
« I am assuming that it is maintained by the content policy team that works on this« , Thukral responded.
Emphasising further, the panel probed, « So say if a thousand posts have been considered to be violative of your community standards which you have subsequently withdrawn from your platform. Will there by a list of those thousand items in your possession?«
« I am assuming that there would be but these would be bound by strict data related laws as well », Thukral answered. He further informed the panel that he was not sure if any member of the Facebook India team would have access to such reports.
Opining that the query does not pertain to the personal data of users, Chadha quizzed further, « This does not pertain to the personal data of users, this pertains to posts that have been made public by a user for anyone to view which you have subsequently found violative of your standards and you have removed it«
Refusing to respond to the specific query, Thukral responded, « A lot of these things fall within the purview of the IT Act so I just want to be mindful of the fact that IT Act is part of the central jurisdiction, some of these issues do pertain to the IT Act and we abide by the IT Act so I would exercise my right not to respond to these specific details as you are framing it«
Underscoring that the Committee does have the jurisdiction to seek the aforementioned clarifications, the panel referred to Para 153 of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ajit Mohan & Others v. Legislative Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi wherein the Supreme Court had clearly outlined the terms of reference of the Committee.
« The capital of the country can ill-afford any repetition of the occurrence and thus, the role of Facebook in this context must be looked into by the powers that be. It is in this background that the Assembly sought to constitute a peace and harmony committee – whether it has the legislative competence or not is an aspect we will deal with it under the relevant head. The Assembly being a local legislative and governance body, it cannot be said that their concerns were misconceived or illegitimate. It is not only their concern but their duty to ensure that « peace and harmony » prevails. However, we may note that the long and repeated battles between the State and the Centre appear to have cast a shadow even over the well-meaning intent of the Committee to assess peace and harmony as reflected in the Terms of Reference« , the Supreme Court had observed.
Accordingly, the panel directed the social media giant,
« We would certainly request you to provide us with a record of all the audience reports or the complaints that were filed one month prior to the happening of the unfortunate communal riots in Delhi and starting from one month prior to two months after the unfortunate incident«
Hate promotes virality, virality increases your revenue: Committee
During the proceedings, the Facebook representatives further highlighted that the company takes the grievances raised very seriously. He further asserted, « We feel that whatever is happening in our platform is a reflection of whatever is happening in the real world. » Opining further that the company does not intend to promote hate, he remarked further,
« But to say that we want hate on our platforms, hate hurts us. We don’t want hate on our platform either. We have zero tolerance to hate on our platforms. Our advertisers don’t want hate to be shown. We believe that our platform does more good than bad«
Refusing to entertain such a submission, the Chadha emphatically remarked,
« Notwithstanding your comments about how hate on your platform adversely impacts you, which may or may not, I don’t know, there are views and reports that certainly highlight the fact that hate promotes virality, virality increases your revenue. »
Expressing strong reservations to the submission that the social media platform only reflects whatever is happening in the real world, Chadha referred to para 200 of the Supeme Court judgment wherein it had been observed, « We are, however, not impressed with the argument of Mr. Salve that the petitioners cannot be drawn into what is perceived to be a political divide. Facebook is a platform where such political differences are reflected. They cannot wash their hands off the issue as this is their very business. As noticed earlier, their role is not as innocuous as they are seeking to contend«
Facebook CEO Mark Zukerberg’s role in overseeing the functioning of the public policy team
The Committee further wanted to know the extent of involvement of Facebook CEO Mark Zukerberg in reviewing the functioning of the public policy team of Facebook India. Chadha further remarked in this regard, « I am sure the global CEO would closely look at one market that gives 40 percent of its registered users«
In response, Thukral responded, « Our governance structure is designed in a manner that our global leadership is fully aware of how we function in any country »
The Facebook representatives were further asked to provide a brief outline of all the members that comprise the global leadership of the company despite objections that by the preventatives that they are not permitted to share employee details.
« Do provide us with the members of that constitute global leadership and a brief outline of their roles and responsibilities. I ask this question because the members of this committee had seen a video of your global CEO post the Delhi riots where he was referring to a particular video that is alleged to have triggered those riots. It is in that context that the company wanted to know you know if the global CEO is cognisant of the happenings in Delhi and how his brainchild and entity has been used knowingly or unknowingly to further communal attention and deepen the fault lines that exist« , Chadha remarked further. Chadha was apparently referring to a video in which Mark Zukerberg was citing a speech given by BJP leader Kapil Mishra ahead of Delhi riots as an example of hatespeech.
No specific definition of ‘hate speech’ in the context of India
Bringing to light a pertinent query, the panel enquired from the Facebook representatives, « Has Facebook India defined hate speech in the Indian context? A specific definition pertaining to India? » In response, the panel was informed that the social media giant relies on the broad definition of ‘hate speech’ as envisaged in the Community Guidelines of the company and that there is no specific definition as such as applicable to the Indian jurisdiction.
« What could be hate speech in the US may not be hate speech in India. It is in that context I am asking, is there a specific definition of hate speech for India?« , Chadha enquired further. However, the Facebook representatives maintained that their definition of hate speech as stipulated in the community guidelines is applicable to all jurisdictions.
Expressing his clear displeasure at such a submission, Chadha remarked,
« I have only asked you to furnish certain data. Help us understand the definition of hate speech. For the Committee to dive into this, we need a foundation of a definition. If we don’t have a foundation of a definition, it certainly prohibits our proceedings and it is deeply worrying for me as the Chairman of the committee to note that there is no stand-alone individual definition of hate speech in the Indian context alone. There is perhaps a global definition along with the community standards that you have given but that definition as well as community standards apply to all jurisdictions. There is no India specific definition from where you derive 40 percent of your users and what can be hate speech in the US or in Australia or UK may not be hate speech in India. In fact what can be hate speech in Pakistan may not be hate speech in India«
The Facebook representatives however asserted that the definition of hate speech is subject to constant change. Accordingly, they informed the panel,
« There was a time when caste was not a part of our hate speech definition. But we realised that in the context of India, we could not afford to do that. That is how our hate speech definition evolved. We are open to suggestions from the committee«
Fact checking infrastructure limited to only 11 local languages, does not cover all 20 languages
The Committee was further informed that Facebook India relies on nearly 10 fact checking partners with IFSC certification (International Fact Checking Network) covering 11 local languages to curb the spread of fake news and organised disinformation campaigns. However, the Committee expressed reservations to the fact that although the social media platform offers users to operate in 20 languages, their fact checking infrastructure is only limited to 11 languages.
Chadha further enquired from the representatives as to whether there exits any commercial understanding with the fact checking entities. To this, Thukral responded that a commercial incentive does exists but he is unsure of further details since he does not head that particular operation.
Click Here To Watch Entire Proceedings
Subscribe to Live Law now and get unlimited access.
Already have an account? Sign In