Six of Nine Independent Advisers Resign From Big Tech's Anti-Terrorism Forum

Six of the nine independent experts on the advisory board of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) resigned, according to a letter seen by WIRED and interviews with four of the people. The consortium is run by several of the largest US technology companies.

The dispute dates back to a July email from Meta's Nell McCarthy, a vice president overseeing content policy. She wrote that while the GIFCT still welcomed the experts' insights into violent trends, it no longer wanted their scrutiny of the companies' own efforts to curb violence. Meta and other leaders proposed to "refresh" the advisory committee, which the experts had served on for six years.

What the plan would change

Under the proposal, new members of the rotating committee would be appointed by the technology companies rather than elected by sitting members. The body would also be barred from commenting on the consortium's performance or issuing recommendations as a group, and could not evaluate its budget or the work of individual member companies.

"Decoration and accountability theatre"

In their resignation letter, the departing experts wrote that their objections had been "ignored" and that they had "lost confidence in the GIFCT's ability to deliver effectively on its founding mission" of preventing terrorists from exploiting online services. "We all know that a body that cannot scrutinise, take a position, or evaluate is not an advisory body at all," the letter says. "It is decoration and accountability theatre."

The response from Meta and the GIFCT

Meta declined to comment and referred the matter to the GIFCT. In an unsigned statement, a spokesperson said the proposed changes were "informed by several rounds of feedback" and are not final. Meta holds the chair of the GIFCT operating board this year, though other member companies must ultimately approve policy changes.

The GIFCT has about 35 members, with Microsoft and YouTube among its long-standing board members.

Why it matters

The experts who resigned include university researchers and civil society representatives. They agreed with McCarthy that the consortium needed changes, but argue the proposal is a step backward. One said there would no longer be critical voices questioning what the GIFCT does or fails to do. Another called it "a shame" that they chose "a rollback of independence that was already weak to begin with" instead of building better evaluation and transparency. Both spoke anonymously, citing fear of retaliation from the Trump administration and congressional Republicans.

The committee still includes representatives of the UN and governments such as Canada and the EU. Last Friday the full 17-member panel sent McCarthy a letter opposing the plan. AI-generated extremist content has made balancing free expression and online safety harder.