Inside Two Years of Turmoil at Big Tech’s Anti-Terrorism Group

The four tech giants have presided over the consortium since they announced it in 2016, when Western governments were berating them for allowing Islamic State to post gruesome videos of journalists and humanitarians being beheaded. Now with a staff of eight, GIFCT—which the board organized as a US nonprofit in 2019 after the Christchurch massacre—is one of the groups through which tech competitors are meant to work together to address discrete online harms, including child abuse and the illicit trade of intimate images.

The efforts have helped bring down some unwelcome content, and pointing to the work can help companies stave off onerous regulations. But the politics involved in managing the consortia generally stay secret.

Just eight of GIFCT’s 25 member companies answered WIRED’s requests for comment. The respondents, which included Meta, Microsoft, and YouTube, all say they are proud to be part of what they view as a valuable group. The consortium’s executive director, Naureen Chowdhury Fink, didn’t dispute WIRED’s reporting. She says TikTok remains in the process to attain membership.

GIFCT has relied on voluntary contributions from its members to fund the roughly $4 million it spends annually, which covers salaries, research, and travel. From 2020 through 2022, Microsoft, Google, and Meta each donated a sum of at least $4 million and Twitter $600,000, according to the available public filings. Some other companies contributed tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars, but most paid nothing.

By last year, at least two board members were enraged at companies they perceived as freeloaders, and fears spread among the nonprofit’s staff over whether their jobs were in jeopardy. It didn’t help that as Musk turned Twitter into X about a year ago, he kept slashing costs, including suspending the company’s optional checks to GIFCT, according to two people with direct knowledge.

To diversify funding, the board has signed off on soliciting foundations and even exploring government grants for non-core projects. “We’d really have to carefully consider if it makes sense,” Chowdhury Fink says. “But sometimes working with multiple stakeholders is helpful.”

Rights activists the group privately consulted questioned whether this would count as subsidies for tech giants, which could siphon resources from potentially more potent anti-extremism projects. But records show staff were considering seeking a grant of more than tens of thousands of dollars from the pro-Israel philanthropy Newton and Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust. Chowdhury Fink says GIFCT didn’t end up applying.

This year, Meta, YouTube, Microsoft, and X amended GIFCT’s bylaws to require minimum annual contributions from every member starting in 2025, though Chowdhury Fink says exemptions are possible.

Paying members will be able to vote for two board seats, she says. Eligibility for the board is contingent on making a more sizable donation. X had signaled it wouldn’t pay up and would therefore forfeit its seat, two sources say—a development that ended up happening this month. It had been scheduled to hold tiebreaking power among the four-company board in 2025. (Under the bylaws, Meta, YouTube, and Microsoft could have ejected Twitter from the board as soon as Musk acquired the company. But they chose not to exercise the power.)