In the last week, Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, may have experienced some compassion for his fellow American, Mark Geiger. Geiger, as you may recall, was the officiant during the exciting World Cup match between Colombia and England in the tournament’s round of 16. If you were rooting for England, you might remember him as a referee who handled a challenging situation reasonably well. On the other hand, if you are from Colombia, you may regard him as a blundering fool who invalidated a legitimate goal, showed obvious favoritism toward England, and overlooked instances of players diving and exaggerating.
A quick search on Twitter reveals the strong opinions held regarding the unfortunate referee’s performance. The topic of “bias” is fiercely debated, even though every incident is captured and scrutinized through video evidence. Should you peruse CNN’s Spanish coverage, you might feel as though you had observed an entirely different game compared to the version offered in English.
As the upcoming midterm elections in November approach, the challenge of addressing bias is a pressing concern for Dorsey at Twitter, as well as for his peers at Facebook and other tech firms.
Recent reports indicate that Dorsey is among several tech executives aiming to tackle the worries of Republicans who believe that companies in Silicon Valley are letting their liberal biases influence how they manage and present content. According to various sources, including a piece in the Washington Post, a number of reconciliatory discussions and a dinner occurred. This development has angered those who view Twitter as a primary platform where the right organizes attacks against critics and adversaries, and as a medium that permits a far-right administration to persistently challenge fundamental democratic principles, such as the freedom of the press.
Observers have noted that the frequent disruptions of platforms like Twitter and Facebook due to ongoing grievances, despite a lack of substantial evidence for systemic bias, align with strategies commonly seen among US conservatives.
Conversations with individuals involved in both product development and policy at these platform companies reveal two primary dynamics at play. First, many companies are still struggling with an internal ideological split over the extent to which they should engage in political matters and news. Second, where there is a public assertion to address the issue of harmful dialogue (such as on Twitter), there exists a heated internal discussion regarding how to tackle bias and the perceptions of bias.
Should companies create more explicit standards and guidelines that reflect their values, which in turn contain political implications? Or should they instead pursue a more open and transparent complaint resolution process, which may incur notable internal expenses? One aspect that stands out is that the current situation must progress beyond the constant tug-of-war of current political pressures.
Technology firms are well-versed in influencing political authorities. However, they may not be as experienced when it comes to the influence directed at them. There are minimal safeguards established to protect these companies from the kind of pressures that media organizations have faced, and occasionally yielded to, over many years.
Dorsey’s dinners in Washington have drawn comparisons to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s unsuccessful meeting with conservative leaders in May 2016, which followed revelations that human curators had limited the visibility of far-right news sources in a specific ranking system.