Explained: 5 points in the very public spat between Meta and The Wire
At the heart of the row is the pulling down of an Instagram post; while The Wire alleged that it was done on BJP’s direction, Meta said it processes are run entirely by technology
A huge dispute has broken out between Indian news website The Wire and Meta — the social media behemoth that owns Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram – over the process of content moderation practised by Meta.
There has been a lot of to and fro between the two organisations following a story by The Wire on the taking down of some posts on Instagram by Meta.
1. How did the dispute start?
On October 6, The Wire reported that a number of Instagram posts by an account named ‘Superhumans of Cringetopia’ had been taken down on September 19 for violating the platform’s community guidelines. Superhumans of Cringetopia mostly does satirical posts that are often critical of Hindutva groups and the Narendra Modi government.
Also read: Meta disables Russian propaganda network targeting Europe
The post in question showed a video of a man performing aarti to an idol of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. It was flagged and taken down for violating the platform’s standards on “sexual activity and nudity”. That raised eyebrows as in the video there was no nudity or sexual content — both the idol and the devotee were fully clothed.
According to Meta, the post was flagged by its automated systems for review and removed for violating various different policies after being reviewed by its Community Operations team.
The Wire report contested this, claiming that this Instagram story was one among many other posts by the same account that were taken down within minutes of being uploaded. It questioned whether it was genuinely because of AI algorithms or human intervention was involved.
2. Where did Amit Malaviya come in?
The Wire report claimed that Meta took down this post at the direction of Amit Malviya, the head of the BJP’s social media cell. It alleged that Instagram has an X-Check or Cross Check programme which gives some users special privileges and that Malviya has been given that status that ensures that any posts that he reports are removed from the platform immediately, “without any of the company’s moderators looking at it”.
The X-Check programme was first reported by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in September 2021. According to the WSJ report, this programme protects at least 5.8 million high-profile Facebook and Instagram accounts — such as celebrities, politicians and journalists — from Meta’s content takedown procedure that apply to ordinary users.
The Wire report said that the worshipping of Yogi Adityanath’s idol post was taken down because it was reported by Malviya. The post was instantly taken down and did not require a review as the “reporting user has X-Check privileges”, claimed The Wire. It also said Malviya had reported 705 posts till date, all of which had been taken down.
3. What’s Meta’s defence?
The Wire carried an image of an email allegedly sent by Meta Communications Director Andy Stone, in which he rebuked the company’s employees, asking them how the internal Instagram report got leaked and seeking more information on the matter. The report further claimed that Stone asked The Wire journalist Jahnavi Sen and editor Siddharth Varadarajan to be put on a “watchlist”.
Stone responded to this allegation saying the report was based on false information. He said X-Check had “nothing to do with the ability to report posts”. “Posts in question were surfaced for review by automated systems, not humans,” he said, adding that the internal report accessed by the news website “appears to be fabricated”.
Defending its report, The Wire then published another article claiming that Stone’s public comments contradicted the internal communication he sent after the first report.
Also read: Don’t use apps that demand login details, Facebook warns users
In response to this, Meta’s Chief Information Security Officer Guy Rosen tweeted that The Wire’s reports were false. He said the internal report relied on by The Wire for its first story was “a fabrication”, as the link and the naming convention in it were not used by the company.
Further, he said, the purported email from Stone was also fake, as Stone’s email address (@fb.com) in the photo was not in use and the email was sent to an email address that was not in use. The “watchlist” mentioned in the email also did not exist, he claimed.
Quoting Meta sources, The Wire said that though Stone uses a @meta.com email ID for external communications, he does use a @fb.com id for internal communications. Hence, the mail it shared with readers was not fake, it insisted.
What’s X-Check for, per Meta?
Meta insists that while it does have a Cross Check (X-Check) programme, its purpose is entirely above board.
“Our Cross Check system was built to prevent potential over-enforcement mistakes and to double-check cases where a decision could require more understanding or there could be a higher risk for a mistake. To be clear, our Cross Check program does not grant enrolled accounts the power to automatically have content removed from our platform,” the tech giant said in a blog post titled ‘What The Wire Reports Got Wrong’.
The company said that the allegations “contain mischaracterizations of how our enforcement processes work, and rely on what we believe to be fabricated evidence in their reporting”.
“We accept scrutiny of our content decisions, but we fundamentally reject these false allegations based on what we believe to be fabricated evidence. We hope that The Wire is the victim of this hoax, not the perpetrator,” it said on its website.
What are experts saying?
While Meta has a history of taking controversial content-moderation decisions ostensibly to avoid offending local governments and influential public figures, this incident has divided technology researchers and journalists.
Some have pointed out inconsistencies in the defence put out by both Meta and The Wire. While some support Meta’s claims, others show faith in The Wire’s version.
Also read: Parliament panel grills Twitter officials over data security, privacy
Some experts have suggested that this could all be part of a ploy to discredit The Wire. In a tweet, Varadarajan said this was ridiculous as “…Our stories came from multiple Meta sources – whom we know, have met & verified.” The Wire also said that it has additional material to prove that its stories are true.
Techies, meanwhile, are having a field day, taking various positions on the fracas. A section of them is convinced that AI algorithm is behind the take-downs, while the other says the actions smack of human intervention.
