Will social media companies avoid responsibility for the Capitol attacks
2023.01.31 02:30
Will social media companies avoid responsibility for the Capitol attacks
By Tiffany Smith
Budrigannews.com – On the eve of the fatal attack on the US Capitol on January 5, 2021, that was the warning that Twitter staff members gave at an internal meeting. Two former employees of Twitter who testified before the House Jan. 6 Committee stated that this was not the only stark warning that Twitter management received prior to the uprising.
However, these witnesses as well as some staff members of the committee are now dissatisfied, claiming that the committee did not adequately hold major social media companies accountable for their roles in the worst attack on the Capitol in 200 years.
Anika Collier Navaroli, a former employee of Twitter who became a whistleblower and gave evidence to the committee, stated in an interview last week that it was a “real missed opportunity.” Navaroli stated:
“I risked a lot to come forward and speak to the committee and share the truth about these historic moments.”
Budrigannews spoke with half a dozen people who were familiar with the so-called “purple team” of the Jan. 6 Committee, which consisted of staff with expertise in extremism and online misinformation.
According to witnesses and staff, the committee didn’t say much about Big Tech and didn’t include important parts of the team’s work in its final report. An unpublished draft of the team’s findings has been leaked, exposing the discontent to the public, and multiple news organizations have obtained it.
The committee obtained evidence that social media companies like Twitter largely ignored internal concerns that were raised prior to Jan. 6, according to a source familiar with the investigation. However, even though those platforms should have done something at the time, the panel was limited in its ability to hold them accountable.
According to a lawyer who served on the committee, the panel did its job and focused on Donald Trump’s singular and malicious role in an unprecedented attack on American democracy. Additionally, they stated that the final report identifies structural issues affecting social media and society that require additional investigation.
It appears that 2023 will be a pivotal year for Silicon Valley businesses in Washington, DC, which is why there is disagreement regarding the role that social media companies played in the attack on Jan. 6. House Republicans are planning an investigation into alleged Big Tech censorship, particularly with regard to how social media companies handled a 2020 New York Post story about Hunter Biden and his laptop.
This is partly due to the release of Elon Musk’s so-called “Twitter Files.” The high-stakes decision that Meta, the parent company of Facebook, made on Wednesday to reinstate Trump on its platforms is also anticipated to stoke additional scrutiny of the influence that tech companies have in elections. This year, justices on the Supreme Court are expected to rule on a case that could remove important safeguards for tech companies that moderate online speech.
Navaroli isn’t the only one who disagrees with the committee’s findings. In an article published earlier this month, three committee staff members from the so-called purple team harshly criticized the actions taken by social media companies prior to the attack.
They wrote that the “emphasis on Trump” in the final report “meant important context was left on the cutting room floor.”
They stated:
“In fact, the absence of an official Committee report chapter or appendix dedicated exclusively to these matters does not mean that our investigation exonerated social media companies for their failure to confront violent rhetoric.”
Navaroli, who was a member of Twitter’s safety policy team, told the committee that prior to Jan. 6, she had repeatedly warned Twitter’s leadership about the dangers of not taking action against what she described as violent speech.
Navaroli cited one instance in which Trump’s infamous “stand back and stand by” message to the Proud Boys at the first 2020 presidential debate sparked more violent tweets.
In the beginning, Navaroli testified before the committee as an unidentified whistleblower. In order to protect her identity, a portion of her testimony was played during the summer public committee hearings with her voice distorted. However, she later decided to testify before the committee again and make her decision public.
Navaroli stated that she is now speaking out due to her belief that the “truth to be on the record” is crucial. She cited the recent unrest in Brazil, where supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro stormed the country’s top government offices, as evidence that political violence could once again erupt if social media’s role in the Capitol attack is not fully understood.
“Social media played a prominent role in amplifying erroneous claims of election fraud,” read the Committee’s final report from January 6.
An unpublished draft document prepared by committee staff, on the other hand, contained a far more scathing assessment that was obtained by a number of news organizations. The most important findings were:
“The attack on January 6 was helped to facilitate by social media platforms’ delayed response to the rise of far-right extremism and President Trump’s incitement of his supporters.”
Policy, procedure, and decision-making were compromised by political right-wing threats of retaliation.
“After the election, Twitter failed to take actions that could have stopped the spread of incitement to violence.”
After the election, “Facebook did not fail to grapple with election delegitimization so much as it did not even attempt.”
Tech companies have repeatedly stated that they are working to ensure the safety of their platforms and would generally disagree with these findings.
Prior to January 6, 2021, Twitter’s previous management reiterated the steps it was taking to curb hateful and violent speech on its platform, but stressed that it did not want to restrict free speech unnecessarily. Twitter no longer has a responsive communications team under Musk’s leadership.
Andy Stone, a Facebook parent company Meta spokesperson, cited a previous statement in which the company stated that it was cooperating with the committee.
Jacob Glick, an investigative counsel who took multiple depositions, including Navaroli’s, for the Jan. 6 Committee, stated that the committee did its job of demonstrating to “the American public the dangers posed by President Trump’s multilayered attack on our democracy.”
He called the tech companies’ apparent lack of awareness of their role in the attack “stark.”
According to him:
“I don’t think social media companies recognize they were dealing with a sustained threat to American democracy.”
Glick, who is now employed by the Georgetown Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, stated that the purple team’s report should not have been released because it had not been fact-checked, contained errors, and had not been properly distributed.
According to another person who is familiar with the committee’s work:
“The fact that Trump was at the center of this plot to overturn the election is abundantly clear. Some staff members, including those who wanted their work to be the focus of the investigation, were unable to be included in this extensive report and hearings because of the scope of their work.”
The crucial question of how much influence the companies should have over politicians like Trump has become a central and ongoing debate regarding how social media platforms write and enforce their rules.
While some, such as Navaroli, maintain that Trump repeatedly violated the rules of social media platforms by inciting violent rhetoric, others, such as Musk and the previous management of Twitter, argue that politicians’ statements ought to be made available to as many people as possible so that they can be held accountable.
Trump’s bans have been lifted by Meta and Twitter.
Navaroli commented on the return of prominent election conspiracy theorists to major tech platforms, “We’re moving backwards, and it’s concerning to me.” We know from history what happens when political speech on social media platforms goes unchecked.
