On Friday (Saturday NZT) Google released a Civil Rights Audit that it had voluntarily contracted an external law firm WilmerHale that examines how its policies and services impact civil rights and made a number of recommendations to address misinformation and hate speech.
It is too American centric and doesn’t even appear to consider the Indigenous Peoples of America, while speaking about Black Americans, Latino’s and Asians. Pacific Islanders were mentioned, but it is not clear if that refers to Native Hawai’ians?
The cites the definition of ‘civil rights’ as “… definition is based on U.S. anti-discrimination statutes, regulatory guidance, and academic literature, among other sources. In developing the list of protected characteristics, we consulted guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.’
This is a good example why international companies that have a moral obligation to the citizens of the country they have global offices in, to consider global issues as opposed to only the parent country and their citizens. This report does very little to consider the issues Māori face with YouTube, and online hate speech in various Google services including adverts.
WilmerHale stated they briefly reached out to Alphabet’s global offices including Asia-Pacific. Yet, there is no mention of Te Tiriti, nor does it mention The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) which the United States and 143 other countries, including New Zealand has adopted, essentially making the report less about Indigenous Peoples who suffer hate speech and discrimination and more about American minorities.
Ideally, Google New Zealand would recognise that Māori, the Indigenous Peoples of New Zealand have their own Civil Rights guaranteed under both He Whakaputanga o te Ranatiratanga o Nu Tirene: the Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand 1831 and Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840, New Zealand’s founding constitutional documents that are in New Zealand legislation. It should also recognise that in New Zealand, the Supreme Court has judged that Māori customary law is New Zealand common law. In addition to these, New Zealand laws include the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993, both of which give Māori and all New Zealand citizens civil rights that are recognised by the Parliament and the Crown.
The following principles were developed by Alphabet to guide its approach to civil rights now and in the future, and also used by WilmerHale in their investigation”.
Respect: Alphabet fosters an environment that recognizes the right of our people, users, and stakeholders to be free from discrimination, harassment, and prejudice, including through our products, practices, or platforms. We are at our best when everyone feels seen, heard, recognized, and valued for who they are and has a sense of belonging.
Equity: Alphabet advances fairness, accessibility, and opportunity for all individuals regardless of any social or cultural factors. Our ability to harness our creativity and create true innovation can only come from a culture that invests in people and removes obstacles to growth and progression.
Transparency: Alphabet and our products do our part to guard civil rights, foster equity and inclusion, and address risks of bias, hate, and misinformation. We recognize the importance of sharing information on our efforts to build trust and promote accountability. Accountability: Alphabet holds itself and its people to high ethical standards. We know that our people and our partners expect this of us, and that’s a good thing because we grow and evolve on the basis of their feedback.
These principles are very similar to the principles of Te Tiriti, New Zealand’s founding constitution. Those principles are ‘Tino rangatiratanga, Equity, Active protection, Options and Partnership *‘.
As an example, I have drafted a set of Te Tiriti principles that any tech company such as Alphabet could adapt and modify for the good of the New Zealand people.
Tino rangatiratanga: The guarantee of tino rangatiratanga, which provides for Māori self-determination and mana motuhake in the design, delivery, and monitoring of services and of Māori Data.
Equity: The principle of equity, which requires the company to commit to achieving equitable outcomes for Māori.
Active protection: The principle of active protection, which requires the Company to act, to the fullest extent practicable, to achieve equitable Data, Algorithms and AI for Māori and to consider Māori cultural practices in their daily operations.
Options: The principle of options, which requires the Company to provide for and properly resource kaupapa Māori services of all new developments.
Partnership: The principle of partnership, which the Company and Māori to work in partnership in the governance, design, delivery, and monitoring of services.
One of the recommendations that I do agree with that will benefit Māori was that the Company should set the expectation that all vendors provide training to contract reviewers relevant to the countries for which they are reviewing content and require that full-time employees involved. My experience is that with the Māori language, you can threaten someone in the Māori language and it is not considered a threat. Yet, as seen in the following example (different social media), using Māori words for humor, can make the user censured. I am told this is a common issue for many Māori on social media.
Another issue I see with the findings, is that it does not recommend local administers who are familiar with local hate speech and politics, those who could quickly and accurately assess complaints. It is common for Māori to stop complaining about hate speech and threats online as too often the community moderators simply say it does not breach the standards. One example was a YouTube video threatening mass murder of Māori. It was not deemed to be offensive by the community moderators. One reason could be that the moderator has no idea who or what Māori are, or perhaps even where New Zealand is.
In conclusion, the report could be easily be adapted to provide a solution to protect and recognise Māori and New Zealand’s constitutional obligations the government have with Māori. By doing so, Alphabet and Google could quickly and effectively address the sub culture of hate speech, bias in data, Māori Data Sovereignty, false media and other harmful acts against Māori. Noting that Māori are more likely to be victimized online than any other ethnicity in New Zealand, despite being only about 17 per cent of the population.
- Waitangi Tribunal. 2019. Hauora: Report on Stage One of the Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry. Wellington. Waitangi Tribunal. pp. 163–164
Leave a Reply