Face-off between MPs and social media giants over online hate speech

Committee tells Twitter, Facebook and others they should get tough on online abuse, with one MP accusing them of ‘commercial prostitution’

Social media companies including Twitter, Facebook and Google have come under pressure from MPs for failing to take tougher action to tackle hate speech online.

During heated exchanges at the Commons home affairs committee one Labour MP went as far as accusing internet company executives of “commercial prostitution” and demanding to know whether they had any shame.

Yvette Cooper, the chair of the committee, told social media executives that they had “a terrible reputation” among their users for failing to act on reports of hate speech and other offensive material online.

She prepared for the evidence session on Tuesday by sending Google links to three YouTube videos posted by neo-Nazis including the US white supremacist, David Duke, and National Action, a banned organisation in Britain.

Other MPs on the committee questioned why they could find hate speech material online “within seconds” on social media sites and how Islamic State supporters and neo-Nazi groups could earn advertising revenue through the videos they posted on YouTube.

The social media companies defended their current monitoring arrangements but said they had to rely on their users on a “notify and take down” basis to tackle the problem of online hate. The tech companies’ sheer scale meant it was impossible for them to conduct proactive searches for such material although they were trying to develop technology, including artificial intelligence, that could improve their response to the problem.

But Cooper told the companies their responses were unconvincing and they were not enforcing their own published community standards despite having millions of users in Britain and making billions of pounds from them.

She cited examples of four tweets posted on Monday that made violent threats against public figures that she had reported to Twitter but remained online 24 hours later as the committee took evidence. They included one which referred to Angela Merkel saying she was “a bitch that needed a bullet in the head”. Others included such references to the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, and Gina Miller who brought the Brexit case against the government.

Nick Pickles, Twitter’s head of public policy for the UK, apologised to Cooper for not having looked at their community staff by the time of the hearing but said he expected they would be dealt with at the end of the day, especially as they involved violent threats.

Pickles said three other Twitter accounts notified by the committee had been suspended but no action had been taken against a fourth which included the hashtag #deportallmuslims, as while “highly offensive”, it had not breached the company’s community standards.

The Twitter executive later declined to say how many staff it employed to work on safety and content moderation saying that if he gave a figure people would just say “it is not enough”.

He told the MPs the company had recently rolled out technology to help identify accounts which break its rules, in addition to the system of user reporting: “That’s a step change in how we deal with abuse. We are looking for it and will take action on content even when it hasn’t been reported by users.”

Peter Barron, Google Europe’s vice-president for communications and public affairs, said two of the three Youtube videos reported by the committee had been removed. But a fourth, a David Duke video entitled “Jews admit organising white genocide” had not been removed despite being described by Cooper as antisemitic and shocking.

Barron said while many Duke videos had been removed this particular one “did not cross the line into hate speech even though it was shocking and offensive in its nature”.

Simon Milner, EMEA policy director at Facebook, also tried to explain to the MPs why four Facebook pages all remained online including one entitled Ban Islam. He told the committee: “These pages in and of themselves do not violate because we make it clear that you can criticise religions. You cannot express hate against people because of their religion. So Ban Islam is a page which is designed to criticise Islam as a religion. It is not expressly, in and of itself, designed to attack Muslims.”

Milner insisted Facebook deployed a lot of time, effort and resource to tackling the problem. “To suggest we are in some way negligent or not caring about this issue is simply not true,” he said.

But the companies’ responses seemed only to intensify the anger of the MPs. When one company executive explained why a Holocaust denial tweet did not breach its guidelines the veteran Labour MP, David Winnick, told the three executives that they were engaged in little more than “commercial prostitution” and said he would be ashamed to earn his money in the way they did.

Contributor

Alan Travis Home affairs editor

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
MPs press social media firms over failure to take down hate speech
Committee says there has been a shift in attitudes at Facebook, YouTube and Twitter but ‘we need you to do more’

Alan Travis ​Home affairs editor

19, Dec, 2017 @1:31 PM

Article image
Social media firms must face heavy fines over extremist content – MPs
An inquiry by the Commons home affairs committee condemns technology companies for failing to tackle hate speech

Owen Bowcott Legal affairs correspondent

01, May, 2017 @5:01 AM

Article image
Social media addiction should be seen as a disease, MPs say
UK report suggests sites such as Facebook and Instagram could be harming mental health

Jim Waterson Media editor

18, Mar, 2019 @12:01 AM

Article image
A ‘safe space for racists’: antisemitism report criticises social media giants
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok failing to act on most reported anti-Jewish posts, says study

Maya Wolfe-Robinson

02, Aug, 2021 @4:14 PM

Article image
Adult online age used by third of eight- to 17-year-old social media users
Ofcom study covers Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and YouTube, all of which have age limits of 13

Dan Milmo Global technology editor

10, Oct, 2022 @11:01 PM

Article image
Social media firms 'should hand over data amid suicide risk'
Royal College of Psychiatrists hope research will shine light on how young people use platforms

Denis Campbell Health policy editor

17, Jan, 2020 @12:01 AM

Article image
MPs criticise social media firms for failure to report criminal posts
Facebook, Google and Twitter condemned for not telling police about crimes on their platforms

Alex Hern

24, Apr, 2019 @2:40 PM

Article image
Social network giants pledge to tackle abuse of women online
Facebook, Google, Twitter and TikTok commit to overhaul their platform’s moderation systems

Alex Hern UK technology editor

01, Jul, 2021 @5:00 AM

Article image
The royal twitterati: how the monarchy learned to love social media
The Queen and princes Charles, William and Harry have been quick to realise the power of social media to boost popularity

Caroline Davies

16, Feb, 2017 @6:37 PM

Article image
How do you promote a party manifesto on social media?
Our Digital dashboard team looks at how the main parties tout their policies online

David Pegg, Niamh McIntyre and Pamela Duncan

26, Nov, 2019 @7:00 AM