Facebook Says “Hate Hurts Us” At Hearing, Delhi Panel Says “Not Sure”

Facebook, which now goes by the corporate name “Meta”, faced tough questions on the religious affiliation of its staff in India and the company’s policy on hate posts from Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Raghav Chaddha.

New Delhi: Facebook officials were grilled today by a Delhi panel over hate posts linked to the February 2020 riots in the capital and the action taken to remove such content.

In a livestreamed session, the company that now goes by the corporate name “Meta” faced tough questions on its policy on hate posts in the Indian context and was asked to share details of the religious affiliations of its employees in India.

“Explain the composition of the Facebook India team including the number of religious minority employees. What is the religious affiliation of people working in Facebook India,” questioned Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Raghav Chaddha, who heads the Delhi Assembly Committee on Peace and Harmony.

“We don’t maintain the records on religion-wise employees. The law of the land doesn’t allow it,” Shivnath Thukral, Facebook India’s Public Policy Director, replied.

Mr Chaddha asked Facebook to provide in the next hearing details on the composition of the public policy team and the board of directors based on religion and the shareholding pattern.

The committee also asked Facebook to submit all user complaints received from a month before the riots to two months after.

The American-style questioning was often testy.

“Hate hurts us. We don’t want hate on our platform. Our advertisers don’t want either. We are continuously working on it,” said the Facebook official.

“5 billion dollars was invested this year alone for safety and security. We are mindful and take the issue seriously. I don’t sleep peacefully with hate.”

The AAP leader retorted: “I am not sure whether hate hurts you because you are a business and virality of hate posts bring you revenue.”

Did Facebook define hate speech in the Indian context, the committee asked.

Without giving a specific response to the question, Mr Thukral said, “We have to balance between free speech and safety. Based on the inputs, in Indian context we have included caste in hate speech.”

Pressed on whether there was a hate speech policy specific to India, the official used the right to not answer.

Facebook was also asked how fast it acted on complaints related to posts.

“Within 24 hours an acknowledgement is given on complaints and if it the content violates policy, it’s taken down immediately,” Mr Thukral said.

Asked for data on posts removed for violating policy during the Delhi riots, Facebook officials refused to share the details citing a Supreme Court order calling it a law and order subject.

Did Facebook file any complaint with law enforcement agencies for inflammatory content, Mr Thukral was asked. “We remove violative content and are not a law enforcement agency. We don’t file any compliant to any agency,” he replied.

The committee questioned whether the platform took measures to remove problematic content during the Delhi riots.

Facebook replied that it had a “bucket of measures” as part of its policy against hate speech that was a “continuing process” and does not stop. Asked to explain how such content was removed, Mr Thukral said the sharing of the content was reduced based on an algorithm that pulled down the vitality and engagement of the content.

The generic nature of their answers appeared to upset the committee.

“By stonewalling questions, you are frustrating the proceedings,” Mr Chadhha said.

As Mr Thukral said, to most India-specific post-related questions, that content is handled by a separate team, the committee may summon the content policy head next.

The panel had summoned Facebook India to clarify its position on the role of social media in preventing the spread of false and provocative messages that impact peace. Facebook had challenged the summons before the Supreme Court, which refused to cancel it.

The three-day violence in Delhi, related to the CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) protests, left over 50 dead and 200 injured.