As Kabul fell to Taliban forces over the weekend, social networks struggled to cope with the renewed attention brought to the organisation – and its presence on their platforms.
In the US, Republicans expressed outrage that Twitter, which had permanently banned Donald Trump from its platform in January, seemed content to allow named Taliban members access to the social network to promote their narrative. WhatsApp faced criticism for its role in enabling the Taliban to threaten, cajole and bribe local leaders into laying down their arms as they marched across the country. At Google, YouTube’s seeming lack of any substantial policy allowed it to avoid much of the attention, until it became the last network not to have rebuked the organisation.
At the core of the issue was an awkward bind for the social networks. The Taliban are not on the US state department’s list of foreign terrorist organisations, which most major platforms defer to when deciding which groups should be flatly banned, although they are on the US treasury’s list of “specially designated global terrorists”, which subjects them to Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions.
As the group seized control of the Afghan state, it also raised difficult questions about who the rightful rulers of the country actually are – questions that social networks were called upon to adjudicate, thanks to the presence of verified accounts representing the Afghan government.
Facebook, for its part, has banned the Taliban from its platform for years. The company operates a secret list of “designated hate organisations”, praise for which can result in users’ accounts being banned from the service, and it says the Taliban’s military success does not change things.
“Regardless of who holds power, we will take the appropriate action against accounts and content that breaks our rules.”
WhatsApp, a Facebook subsidiary, has a more difficult job. Because of the company’s end-to-end encryption, it is limited in its moderation efforts: it cannot read the contents of messages or attachments and can only take action against accounts based on information such as usernames or profile pictures.
Nonetheless it was galling for some to see the Taliban publicly sharing WhatsApp details as part of their governance efforts. On Sunday, the Taliban began advertising a “complaints hotline” that Kabul residents could use to report violence or looting. That was a step too far for Facebook, which blocked the number – but only after two days of complaints from observers.
A WhatsApp spokesperson said: “We’re obligated to adhere to US sanctions laws. This includes banning accounts that appear to represent themselves as official accounts of the Taliban. We’re seeking more information from relevant US authorities given the evolving situation in Afghanistan.”
The decision to block the Taliban’s number was received with mixed support from those with knowledge of the region, who said it would do little to prevent the organisation from retaining power but could risk adding more confusion and misinformation to an already chaotic situation.
Many Taliban accounts are still active and functioning: as of Wednesday, the organisation’s spokesperson was still contactable on the site – although a brief period from late June when it was officially registered as a business account came to an end on Tuesday.
Twitter does not have a blanket policy against Taliban use of the site, and the official account of the group’s spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid has hit more than 300,000 followers since the fall of Kabul.
In a statement, Twitter said: “The situation in Afghanistan is rapidly evolving. We’re also witnessing people in the country using Twitter to seek help and assistance. Twitter’s top priority is keeping people safe, and we remain vigilant. We are taking steps to safeguard the voices of those on our service who represent protected groups including humanitarian workers, journalists, news media organisations, human rights activists and others.”
YouTube applied the US sanctions policies to deciding who could and could not have an account, a spokesperson said. “All content on YouTube is subject to our terms of service and community guidelines. YouTube complies with all applicable sanctions and trade compliance laws, including relevant US sanctions. As such, if we find an account believed to be owned and operated by the Afghan Taliban, we terminate it. Further, our policies prohibit content that incites violence.”
… we have a small favour to ask. Millions are turning to the Guardian for open, independent, quality news every day, and readers in 180 countries around the world now support us financially.
We believe everyone deserves access to information that’s grounded in science and truth, and analysis rooted in authority and integrity. That’s why we made a different choice: to keep our reporting open for all readers, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. This means more people can be better informed, united, and inspired to take meaningful action.
