yesIssie LapowskyNone
×

Get access to Protocol

I’ve already subscribed

Will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy

People

In 2020, Big Tech reckoned with racial injustice. Its work is far from over.

From Facebook's walkouts to Amazon's facial recognition moratorium, did any of it make a difference?

In 2020, Big Tech reckoned with racial injustice. Its work is far from over.

Racial injustice issues engulfed the U.S. this year, and Big Tech wasn't spared.

Photo: Mark Makela/Getty Images

The movement for Black lives marched straight into the heart of some of Silicon Valley's most powerful companies this summer, with Facebook employees staging a virtual walkout over the company's policies, Pinterest employees speaking out about racism and retaliation they experienced and a parade of tech giants making heartfelt commitments to diversity and supporting POC-focused causes.

But as the year comes to a close, one of those giants, Google, is facing an uproar over the firing of Timnit Gebru, one of its top AI ethicists, after she wrote an internal message to fellow Googlers that criticized biases within the company and within its AI technology. It's a scandal Gebru's supporters argue is emblematic of the costs Black people in the tech industry bear for speaking out on issues related to discrimination every day.

So, the natural question to ask is: Did the summer's promises really have any impact on the tech companies who made them? According to some activists, the answer is yes. But there's so much more work to be done.

"What I'm seeing from my purview as a racial justice organizer, especially in the summer, was this transformative moment where corporations, including tech corporations, showed up and expressed values in ways that they never have before in support of the broader movement for Black lives," said Arisha Hatch, chief of campaigns at the advocacy group Color of Change, which focused part of its activism on the tech industry. "The accountability work moving forward is actually pushing them to do tangible things that match up with their broader values."

Hatch said she saw some of those "tangible things" start to materialize this year. For one thing, companies like Facebook and Twitter made measurable commitments to hiring underrepresented minorities, including in executive positions. "Six years ago they were saying it was illegal for them to make those sorts of commitments," Hatch said.

Facebook also promised to set up an internal civil rights infrastructure, following the recommendations laid out in a civil rights audit that Color of Change and others had fought for for years. Hatch called that commitment "the highlight of the year" in terms of progress in tech.

There were some other meaningful advances, too, according to Malkia Devich-Cyril, senior fellow and founding director of MediaJustice: "We saw the movement for Black lives have an incredible impact on the tech industry in the facial recognition debate."

As protests against police brutality swept the country, Amazon said it would stop selling its Rekognition technology to police for one year, Microsoft said it wouldn't sell facial recognition tech to police until there was a federal privacy policy and IBM said it was getting out of the facial recognition business altogether.

Though skeptical that these companies made the decisions out of the goodness of their hearts, Devich-Cyril said the impact is still real: "It was because of the fight and the language of 'defund the police' that those companies even went that far and said: Let's have this moratorium while we figure this out."

Still, Devich-Cyril said they'd like to see tech companies go a lot further in terms of breaking their ties with police, which extend well beyond facial recognition into predictive policing and risk assessment algorithms. "At every stage of the policing system, of the carceral system, we now have technology," they said. "The movement for Black lives has taken this on."

Even as corporate executives have made promises, however hollow, minority tech workers were also emboldened to speak out this year more than they have been in the past, Ifeoma Ozoma said. She, along with her former colleague Aerica Shimizu Banks, described the discrimination she faced at Pinterest on Twitter. That opened the door for other tech workers to share their own stories, too. "A lot of people said that because of the clarity of [our] statement … they felt like they could say more," Ozoma said. "For a long time, they felt like you can't say what happened or who did it or how it happened."

Twitter lit up this summer with the stories of how Black tech workers and startup founders are treated in the industry. "Where I think there's been progress is in folks understanding their ability to organize and blow the whistle," Ozoma said.

But the progress ends there: Whistleblowers, Ozoma said, still face the brunt of the consequences for the problems they call out inside tech companies, an experience she's felt firsthand. "People don't understand the toll that speaking up takes, that enduring any of this takes," Ozoma said.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai has said the company will investigate Gebru's firing, writing in a letter to staff, "We need to accept responsibility for the fact that a prominent Black, female leader with immense talent left Google unhappily. This loss has had a ripple effect through some of our least represented communities, who saw themselves and some of their experiences reflected in Dr. Gebru's."

But for now, it's Gebru who's the one without a job. While Ozoma and Gebru have received plenty of verbal support for their actions, Ozoma said options for whistleblowers are far more limited than many of those supporters understand. "People say, 'Go start your own business.' With what fucking capital?" Ozoma said. "There's an immediate financial toll ... There's a career toll even though people say, 'Anybody would be lucky to have you.'"

Ozoma is now working on a project with the Omidyar Network to provide resources to whistleblowers. She said it's time for tech companies to stop making promises that they end up breaking and to start facing repercussions from the market. She's hopeful that some of that's beginning to happen, as evidenced by a shareholder lawsuit recently filed against Pinterest in response to the allegations she and Shimizu Banks made. "I don't believe in commitments," Ozoma said. "I believe in consequences."

Politics

What tech policy could look like in Biden’s first 100 days

More antitrust laws and bridging the digital divide should be top of mind for the incoming administration.

Antitrust enforcement is one of the big lessons going into the Biden administration.
Photo: Alex Edelman/Getty Images

Although it is too soon to tell with certainty how President-elect Joe Biden will address the questions surrounding tech policy, it is clear that his inaugural transition on Wednesday will affect the world of tech.

Protocol reporters Issie Lapowsky and Emily Birnbaum, virtually met up with panelists Tuesday to discuss what tech policy and regulation could look like in Biden's first 100 days in office — as well as the next four years.

Keep Reading Show less
Penelope Blackwell
Penelope Blackwell is a reporting fellow at Protocol covering ed-tech, where she reports on the decisions leading up toward the advances of remote learning. Previously, she interned at The Baltimore Sun covering emerging news and produced content for Carnegie-Knight’s News21 documenting hate and bias incidents in the U.S. She is also a recent graduate of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism and Morgan State University.
Politics

Silicon Valley is cracking down on Congress

Big Tech's pause on PAC contributions highlights how powerful it's become.

Democrats are particularly frustrated by Facebook, Google and Microsoft's decision to halt PAC contributions altogether, rather than targeting particular Republican lawmakers.

Photo: Tobias Hase/Getty Images

Congress has failed to act on every opportunity it had to seriously rein in the power of Big Tech over the last several years. Negotiations over a federal privacy bill fell apart last year, antitrust reform hit partisan headwinds and every debate over content moderation since 2016 has devolved into a theatrical yelling match that left the parties more divided over solutions than ever.

And now, the bigger-than-ever Silicon Valley is flexing its muscles with impunity as companies cut off violent extremists and wield the power of their political donations, acting more like a government than the U.S. government itself. They're leaving Republicans and Democrats more frustrated and powerless than ever in their wake.

Keep Reading Show less
Emily Birnbaum

Emily Birnbaum ( @birnbaum_e) is a tech policy reporter with Protocol. Her coverage focuses on the U.S. government's attempts to regulate one of the most powerful industries in the world, with a focus on antitrust, privacy and politics. Previously, she worked as a tech policy reporter with The Hill after spending several months as a breaking news reporter. She is a Bethesda, Maryland native and proud Kenyon College alumna.

Trump wants to spend his final week as president getting back at Twitter and Facebook for suspending him.

Photo: Oliver Contreras/Getty Images

President Trump has been telling anyone who will listen that he wants to do something to strike back at Big Tech in the final days of his presidency, promising a "big announcement" soon after Twitter permanently banned him last week.

In a statement that Twitter has taken down multiple times, Trump hammered usual targets — Section 230, the "Radical Left" controlling the world's largest tech platforms — and pledged he would not be "SILENCED." But at this point, as he faces a second impeachment and a Republican establishment revolting against him in the waning days of his presidency, there's likely very little that Trump can actually do that would inflict long-lasting damage on tech companies.

Keep Reading Show less
Emily Birnbaum

Emily Birnbaum ( @birnbaum_e) is a tech policy reporter with Protocol. Her coverage focuses on the U.S. government's attempts to regulate one of the most powerful industries in the world, with a focus on antitrust, privacy and politics. Previously, she worked as a tech policy reporter with The Hill after spending several months as a breaking news reporter. She is a Bethesda, Maryland native and proud Kenyon College alumna.

We need Section 230 now more than ever

For those who want to see less of the kind of content that led to the storming of the Capitol, Section 230 may be unsatisfying, but it's the most the Constitution will permit.

Even if certain forms of awful speech could be made unlawful, requiring tech sites to clean it up would be even more constitutionally difficult.

Photo: Angel Xavier Viera-Vargas

Many conservatives are outraged that Twitter has banned President Trump, calling it "censorship" and solemnly invoking the First Amendment. In fact, the First Amendment gives Twitter an absolute right to ban Trump — just as it protects Simon & Schuster's right not to publish Sen. Josh Hawley's planned book, "The Tyranny of Big Tech."

The law here is clear. In 1974, the Supreme Court said newspapers can't be forced to carry specific content in the name of "fairness," despite the alleged consolidation of "the power to inform the American people and shape public opinion." The Court had upheld such Fairness Doctrine mandates for broadcasters in 1969 only because the government licenses use of publicly owned airwaves. But since 1997, the Court has held that digital media enjoys the same complete protection of the First Amendment as newspapers. "And whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in 2011, "'the basic principles of freedom of speech and the press, like the First Amendment's command, do not vary' when a new and different medium for communication appears."

Keep Reading Show less
Berin Szóka

Berin Szóka (@BerinSzoka) is president of TechFreedom (@TechFreedom), a technology policy think tank in Washington, DC.

People

Google’s productivity guru has some advice for you

Here's how Laura Mae Martin helps Google's top execs work smarter.

Laura Mae Martin, Google's executive productivity adviser, works one-on-one with the company's top brass.

Image: Google

If productivity were a product at Google, then Laura Mae Martin would be its product manager.

She's Google's executive productivity adviser, a job she created following a successful 20% project about managing inboxes that she debuted while working in keyword sales. As the company's top expert on productivity, her remit seems simple enough: Make Googlers more efficient in their day-to-day work lives. But in practice, that means working directly with the top executives of a trillion-dollar company to make some of tech's most sought-after talent better at what they do.

Keep Reading Show less
Kevin McAllister

Kevin McAllister ( @k__mcallister) is an associate editor at Protocol, leading the development of Braintrust. Prior to joining the team, he was a rankings data reporter at The Wall Street Journal, where he oversaw structured data projects for the Journal's strategy team.

Latest Stories