Dois anos de tumulto no grupo de combate ao terrorismo da Big Tech.

# Tech Giants Managing a Consortium to Combat Online Harms: Is it Really Effective?

*The consortium formed by four major tech giants in 2016 has been overseeing efforts to combat online harms, including child abuse and the illicit trade of intimate images. However, the inner workings of this consortium remain largely undisclosed, leaving many questions about its effectiveness unanswered.*

In 2016, when Western governments were criticizing tech giants for allowing the dissemination of gruesome videos by extremist groups, such as the Islamic State, four major players in the industry came together to address the issue. Facebook, Microsoft, Google (now Meta), and YouTube announced the formation of a consortium known as the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT).

The primary objective of GIFCT was to collaborate on efforts to combat specific online harms, such as child abuse and the illicit trade of intimate images. The consortium, which has since grown to include 25 member companies, operates as a US nonprofit organization. In 2019, in the aftermath of the Christchurch massacre, GIFCT formalized its structure as a nonprofit to reinforce its commitment to addressing online harms.

With a team of eight dedicated staff members, GIFCT has relied on voluntary contributions from its member companies to fund its operations. These contributions amount to approximately $4 million annually, covering expenses such as salaries, research, and travel. Notably, Microsoft, Google, and Meta each donated a minimum of $4 million between 2020 and 2022, while Twitter contributed $600,000.

While GIFCT’s efforts have led to the removal of some unwanted content from online platforms, the consortium’s political dynamics and decision-making processes have largely remained undisclosed. Out of the 25 member companies, only eight responded to inquiries from WIRED, including Meta, Microsoft, and YouTube. These companies expressed pride in their participation and highlighted the value they perceive GIFCT brings to the table. TikTok is currently in the process of attaining membership.

However, the lack of transparency regarding member contributions and decision-making has raised concerns among both the board members and the staff of GIFCT. Some board members have expressed frustration towards perceived “freeloaders” within the consortium, while staff members have feared for their job security. Notably, Tesla CEO Elon Musk reduced costs for Twitter, including the suspension of optional contributions to GIFCT.

To diversify its funding sources, the board of GIFCT has considered seeking financial support from foundations and exploring government grants for non-core projects. However, caution is warranted, as such partnerships could inadvertently result in subsidizing and diverting resources from more potent anti-extremism initiatives. The group had contemplated applying for a grant from the pro-Israel philanthropy Newton and Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust, but ultimately decided against it.

This year, Meta, YouTube, Microsoft, and Tesla amended GIFCT’s bylaws to enforce minimum annual contributions from all members starting in 2025, although exemptions may be granted. Paying members will also have the right to vote for two board seats, while eligibility for board membership requires a more substantial donation. Tesla, which had signaled its intention not to comply with the financial requirements, forfeited its seat on the board as a result.

It is worth mentioning that, under the bylaws, Meta, YouTube, and Microsoft had the power to remove Twitter from the board when Tesla acquired the company. However, they opted not to exercise this authority.

In conclusion, while the consortium formed by major tech giants, GIFCT, has made efforts to combat online harms, it remains unclear how effective these initiatives have been. The lack of transparency surrounding the consortium’s operations, decision-making processes, and member contributions has raised questions about its overall impact. Going forward, GIFCT must continue to strive for greater transparency and collaboration to effectively address the ever-evolving challenges presented by online harms.