Tech platforms must step up their efforts to combat extremist propaganda by terrorist groups, former Irish minister Lucinda Creighton told CEPA in an interview. Europe leads the way in cruelty.
Question: Is combating terrorist hate speech still a priority? After all, we haven’t been attacked by terrorists recently.
Answer: If you take all the terrorist attacks in Europe in the last ten years, it’s fair to say that they all depended on some organization on an online platform – whether it was the terrorist cell that attacked Brussels and Paris in 2016, the ‘lone wolf’ Manchester Arena bomber, or others. In each case, individuals radicalized or organized their attacks through online platforms.
This danger has not disappeared. Since the fall of the caliphate, IS has turned its attention to Europe, which is why we need to monitor these cells. Fortunately, European police and counter-terrorism forces have stepped up cooperation. They are thwarting attacks, but we still face a deadly and real Islamic threat, and now Ukraine has added a new dimension to the terror threat.
Question: How does the war in Ukraine relate to this terrorist threat?
Answer: European fighters are returning from the war zone and are a security risk. As of 2014, an estimated 17,000 foreign fighters have been involved in combat. Some are through Russia; Some are through Ukraine. Ukraine is a hotspot for bad content. Many are ideologically far to the right or left. We know there are those involved in the Yellow Jacket protests in France.
Most of the recruitment is done through internet, telegram, messenger, whatsapp and facebook among other platforms. It targets vulnerable and marginalized individuals – often young men. He teaches them deadly skills.
Question: How should we respond?
Answer: You want to control without killing creativity. They want to close weaknesses and gaps. The platforms should be forced to take action, because they have allowed this content to flourish or at least turned a blind eye.
The European Terrorist Content Act came into force two months ago and represents a positive step forward. The Counter Extremism Project I work with has supported it. The bill is not like the hate speech law, which is subjective, open to misinterpretation and raises legitimate freedom of expression concerns. This Terrorist Content Act defines what videos and other content are considered terrorist. It’s obvious. For example, bomb making videos are banned. These videos are not a rational expression of speech – they are designed for evil purposes. According to the new European law, police notifications are mandatory to remove such content.
We could and should have gone ahead – force a takedown. Terrorist content continues to proliferate online, not just hundreds of thousands or millions of videos and images, but billions of pieces of content. In many cases, removed images will just reappear. Platforms are obliged to use hashing technology to prevent illegal videos from being re-displayed.
A sad example 2019 Christchurch New Zealand mosque attack. It went live and went viral. Two months after the accident, the video is still available online.
QUESTION: But didn’t it make a big difference when Christchurch’s call leaders started talking about being tough on online extremism?
Answer: It was just a statement asking tech companies to regulate themselves. I believe the government should step in. You wouldn’t allow that kind of self-regulation in any sector – wouldn’t you regulate financial services after a global disaster, wouldn’t you regulate aviation for health and safety? Companies cannot be expected to regulate themselves.
In my opinion, Christchurch’s call has failed, and Europe has moved on.
Question: What are the next steps?
Answer: Tech companies have protested a limited time to download. I think there should be a 60 minute window. If you don’t remove the material quickly, it will catch the fungus and it will be impossible to catch it.
The European Digital Services Act represents another positive step. It forces them to increase the large platforms because there can be high fines, up to 6% of sales.
There is much more that can be done. DSA does not require the use of specific technologies, so we now have a consistent system across all platforms.
Question: And transatlantic connections? Will this issue divide Washington and Brussels?
Answer: That’s a good question. Europe is definitely ahead of America for many reasons. You have special constitutional protections on free speech in the United States. That creates obstacles, making lawmakers wary.
From a practical point of view, most of the big tech success stories are American and there is a risk that the US will view these measures as targeting US tech companies and as defensive. I think there is a consensus between the current US administration and the European Union that there should be technology control. This issue does not need to create a lot of tension. It would be good if both parties discuss it in the Chamber of Commerce and Technology.
Lucinda Crittenton is a Non-Resident Senior Member at CEPA and former Irish Minister for European Affairs. She advises. Anti-extremism project.
