Six of Nine GIFCT Advisory Experts Resign Over Proposed Big Tech Oversight Changes

6 of them Six of the nine independent experts on the advisory board of the Global Internet Forum for Counterterrorism (GIFCT), a consortium run by several major US technology companies, resigned on Monday, according to a letter and interviews with four of the experts obtained by WIRED.

Tensions between GIFCT and its Independent Advisory Committee date back to an email the counterterrorism and free speech experts received in July from Meta vice president of content policy Nell McCarthy. The group has long advised GIFCT on preventing online platforms from becoming havens for extremist organizations and individuals accused of some of the world’s worst mass violence.

Experts Say Proposed Changes Would Limit Independent Oversight

McCarthy wrote that although the consortium welcomes expert insight into trends in violence, it no longer wants scrutiny of the effectiveness of Big Tech companies’ efforts to curb violence. Mehta and other leaders wanted to “revamp” the six-year independent advisory committee, which includes experts, she wrote. Mehta has chaired GIFCT’s steering committee this year, giving him significant influence over policy changes, which ultimately require approval from the other companies on the committee.

New members of the Rotating Advisory Committee were previously elected by current members. Under the plan outlined in July, technology companies would instead select them. The committee would also be prohibited from considering important topics such as the consortium’s performance or issuing joint recommendations as a group.

The advisers said the changes would neutralize the committee’s watchdog role. In their resignation letters, the outgoing members said their complaints about the plan had been “ignored.” As a result, they said they had “lost confidence in GIFCT’s ability to effectively carry out its founding mission” of preventing terrorists from misusing online services.

“Everyone knows that a body that cannot be scrutinized, take a position, or be evaluated is not an advisory body. It’s a theater of decoration and responsibility.”

GIFCT Says Proposal Is Not Final

Mehta deferred comment on his resignation to GIFCT. An unsigned statement sent to WIRED by a GIFCT spokesperson on behalf of the consortium’s leadership and the steering committee chaired by Mehta said the proposed changes were “informed by several rounds of feedback” and are not yet final.

The changes arose from discussions about “how to more effectively engage civil society and government to gain substantive input,” the statement said, adding that “multistakeholderism is a core principle” for GIFCT.

The consortium has approximately 35 members, including other long-standing participants such as Microsoft and YouTube. A small staff warns members about violent content, supports the exchange of threat information, and commissions research on countering extremism. While the adjustments are helping some platforms combat problematic content, critics say GIFCT is not living up to its potential.

GIFCT Has Faced Earlier Criticism

A 2024 WIRED investigation uncovered several problems involving GIFCT, including Meta’s slowing of TikTok’s membership bid and a deteriorating relationship between the leading company and its unpaid independent advisory board. The investigation also revealed failures in the information-sharing database overseen by the consortium to coordinate the removal of problematic content.

Disbanding the advisory group could further undermine GIFCT’s work at a time when balancing freedom of expression and online safety has become more difficult. Generative AI tools have made content creation easier, while providing limited guardrails.

Extremist content promoting groups such as the Islamic State remains a persistent problem, including content generated by AI. Nihilistic groups are also turning to AI-assisted scams, including sexploitation, to coerce young victims into violence and abuse. Several AI chatbots have been accused of inciting violence.

“A Shame”

The experts who resigned include university researchers and representatives of civil society organizations. They agreed with McCarthy that GIFCT needs changes to improve the anti-terrorism coalition’s achievements over the past decade. However, they believe the proposal, which could be finalized soon, would represent a setback.

“There will be no critical voices raising concerns about what GIFCT is or isn’t doing,” one outgoing expert said. “Abolishing the independent advisory committee may seem politically expedient for them, but they will regret it in the long run.”