Editorial 1: Big Tech’s fail — unsafe online spaces for women

Context

The U.S. presidential election and the campaign has again highlighted a key issue — of technology and online spaces posing a threat to the safety and the dignity of women.

Introduction

Just after U.S. President Joe Biden’s stepping away from the 2024 U.S. presidential race and his endorsement of U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party nominee, Ms. Harris got swift support from notable political figures which included former President Barack Obama. But Ms. Harris’s candidacy sparked significant political debate. Her campaign was also marred by AI-generated deepfakes and disinformation.

Targeting of Ms. Harris During Candidancy

• Early attacks: Even before the announcement of her candidacy, Ms. Harris was the target of memes and video content that focused on her mannerisms that generally showed her in a bad light.
  • These attacks escalated after her candidacy was announced.
  • They were personal, focusing on her birth, character, and integrity as an American.
• Manipulated content: For instance, there was a manipulated video with her cloned voice that was shared by Elon Musk.
  • She could be seen saying that “President Biden is senile”; that she does not “know the first thing about running the country” and that, as a woman and a person of colour, she is the “ultimate diversity hire”.
• Relentless trolling: In addition to these digital assaults, Ms. Harris faced relentless trolling, particularly from right-wing figures.
  • Former U.S. President Donald Trump often mocked her manner of laughter and labelled her “crazy”.
  • Media personalities Megan Kelly and Ben Shapiro were explicit in their posts on how Ms. Harris moved to the top.
• Derogatory content: Social media was flooded with derogatory jokes, sexualised images, and racist and sexist comments directed against her.
  •  A recent Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated video depicted Ms. Harris and Donald Trump in a fabricated romantic relationship.
• Implications of AI-Generated content: These AI-generated videos are not only violative of privacy but also deeply undermine the dignity of women.
  • Despite user knowledge of such content being fake, their wide circulation suggests deep user engagement.

No isolated case

• Broader context of harassment: Ms. Harris’s ordeal is not an isolated case.
  • Women in power or those aspiring for high office face similar online harassment.
• Examples of online abuse: When U.S. politician Nikki Haley, for example, was in the running in the Republican primaries, there were manipulated and explicit images of hers that were circulated online.
  • Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni was a target, featuring in a deepfake and explicit video.
  • In Bangladesh, deepfake images of women politicians Rumin Farhana and Nipun Roy were on social media just before the Bangladesh general election on January 7, 2024.
  • Such content garnered millions of views.
• Questions regarding content moderation: This demands the question: how and why do social media platforms allow such content to be posted and shared?
  • What do the content moderators of media platforms do?
• Impact of online abuse: Big Tech’s failure to curb the deluge of degrading content against women results in a disproportionate burden being imposed on women, impacting their identity, dignity and mental well-being.
  • The nature of online abuse women face is also starkly different from the trolling or insults directed at men.
  • While men may encounter misinformation and disinformation regarding their actions or duties, women face objectification, sexually explicit content and body shaming.
• Accountability of Big Tech: Big Tech companies often dodge accountability by claiming that their platforms reflect upon users and that they cannot control it closely.
  • They enjoy immunity from responsibility due to ‘safe harbour’ protections.

More an illusion of empowering women

• Misconceptions about technology: Though technology is often praised as a tool for women’s empowerment, AI and digital technologies appear anything but gender-neutral.
  • Instead, they reflect societal biases and existing stereotypes.
  • Rather than liberating women, AI can amplify entrenched biases and become a new tool for their abuse and harassment.
• Risks faced by women: With AI’s rapid evolution, women face increased risks of digital abuse, violence, and threats.
  • These systems, shaped by datasets infused with societal prejudices and developed mostly by men, often lack the inclusivity needed to challenge discrimination effectively.
• Representation in Tech: The representation of female staff in technology development (female AI developers) is also low in Meta and Google and OpenAI, according to data from Glass.ai.
• Impact on women leaders and ordinary women: Imagine the challenges faced by a serving woman Prime Minister, Ms. Meloni.
  • Now think about the plight of ordinary women.
  • Online harassment sees many women stopping to use digital devices.
  • Or their families restrict their access to these devices, further hindering women’s careers and public life. This is not the solution.
• Responsibility of platforms: Creation and distribution platforms must take the responsibility for failing to curb the spread of harmful content.
  • It is surprising that despite technological advancements, resources are not being invested in developing safety features or enhancing content moderation techniques.
• Effectiveness of current measures: Labelling AI-generated content is not always effective.
  • Often, harmful content needs to be removed entirely. For example, with sexually explicit content, the damage comes from sharing and viewing.
• Misinformation from tech leaders: What is the most troubling is the owners of big tech themselves sharing misinformation and deepfake videos.
  • While they should be allowed to have a political ideology and profess it, they should also realise the power they hold over millions who may not know fake from real.

Beyond clicks and likes

• Necessity of content moderation: Big Tech should ensure that proper content moderation teams and safety researchers are not a liability but a necessity.
  • The time taken to review reported pornography is often too long, causing further harm and violating platform policies.
  • The burden should not fall on users to report and follow up on harmful content. Platforms must share the responsibility.
• Review of harmful Apps: Apps that offer explicit services causing harm to women should be critically reviewed and promptly removed from app stores.
• Role of policymakers and women: Big Tech and policymakers need to resolve such incidents promptly.
  • Women should also be encouraged to take proactive measures by reporting such incidents and taking necessary actions.
  • In Ms. Meloni’s case, she sought €1,00,000 in damages.
  • Ms. Harris and her campaign team were able to turn the trolling attacks on their head and question the inherent misogyny of such online attacks.
• Potential penalties for platforms: Can we think about huge fines in monetary terms and the limitation of platforms for a certain number of days and in certain geographical limits?

Way Forward

• Increasing Female Representation in Tech: We need more women to be involved in developing technology and holding decision-making positions in tech companies.
  • AI entrepreneur Mustafa Suleyman, in his book, The Coming Wave, says moving from technical to non-technical measures is the key.
• Safety measures and Bias testing: To make online spaces safer for women, we need safety researchers and simulation exercises to test for gender biases, especially when AI is involved.
  • Technical professionals can check data for biases, as a model is only as good as its training data, while simulations can assess potential risks.
  • This will help to ensure fair, safe and ethical AI by design. Non-technical measures, laws, policies and governance structures must support these efforts.

Conclusion

Ensuring that technology is free from gender bias should not be the job of only feminists, social scientists, ethicists, or users. The responsibility should start with the tech companies which thrive on revenues from the content generated through user interfaces, developers, and algorithms. Governments and their regulatory bodies must set the guardrails to keep these digital spaces safe and fair for women. Thus, it is key to prioritize women’s safety in technology and digital spaces for all.

Editorial 2: We need to address India’s workplace culture

Context

If we are to address the worst excesses of India’s corporate culture, some form of regulation seems unavoidable.

Introduction

In September, the mother of Anna Sebastian, the young chartered accountant who passed away in July allegedly due to work stress, said, “They say we have received freedom in 1947, but our children are still working like slaves.” Her anguished cry goes to the heart of the issue of workplace culture in India’s corporate world.

• The inquiry report of the Ministry of Labour, promised within 10 days, is still awaited.
• The corporate world has chosen to remain largely silent on the tragedy.
• What corporate leader would dare to point fingers at others when the position at his own firm is not very different?

Toxic work culture

• The Real Problem: The issue is not just long hours or having to put in extra effort to meet a deadline.
• Lack of Respect and Fairness: Employees will gladly slog it out if they are shown respect, appreciated, and feel they are treated fairly.
• From all accounts, much of corporate India fails on every count.
  • Toxic work culture is pervasive in India’s private sector.
• Exploitation through cost-cutting: Long hours flow directly from a focus on the bottom line that comes at the expense of employees’ well-being.
  • The management employs two people where four are required. It seeks to motivate the two employees by giving them the wages of three, thus saving on one employee.
• Justification through corporate jargon: Impressive jargon has been created to justify exploitation of employees and inhuman work hours.
  • Meeting stiff targets against heavy odds is ‘organisational stretch’.
  • There is ‘variable pay’ to promote a ‘performance culture’ that translates into a higher stock price — great for top management that corners most of the stock options.
  • There is a ‘bell curve’ that identifies super-performers as well as under-performers.
  • There are ‘stress management’ workshops to deal with the burn-out that ensues.
  • Management does not stop to ask itself why it is creating so much stress for employees in the first place.

What are the comparisons to global work cultures?

• European Context: Long hours and employee burnout are typical of the corporate culture of the U.S. but not of Europe.
  • France has a 35-hour work week.
  • In the rest of Europe, the norm is about 40 hours.
  • European firms lack competitiveness, European standards of living are nothing to scoff at.
• Context Differences Between the U.S. and India: It is unrealistic to try to import the American culture into a setting that could not be more different.
  • The per capita income in the U.S. is $85,000. In India, it is $2,700.
  • The typical U.S. employee operates at a level of comfort — in terms of housing, commuting, health, diet, and leisure — that is way above that of the Indian employee.
• The Indian Context: In India’s big cities, simply going to office and getting back can be an ordeal.
  • So are getting school admissions for children (and then getting them into coaching classes), looking after an elderly parent, and generally ensuring that the household is ticking along.
  • Long hours are only part of the problem.
• Unprofessional Conduct in the Workplace: Bosses often use language that can range from being unprofessional to abusive.
  • During the tenure of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, his deputy, Dominic Raab, faced charges of ‘bullying’ from officials he had worked with in his previous stints as minister.
  • An enquiry found that he had been “aggressive” and “intimidating” but not “abusive”. Mr. Raab, nevertheless, had to resign.
  • Such was the fate of the U.K. Deputy Prime Minister, no less, for having breached norms of civilised behaviour.
  • One wonders what would happen if these standards were applied to India’s corporate world.
• Lack of legal recourse for Indian employees: In the U.S. and in Europe, employees can sue the firm for a range of objectionable behaviours including those that cause them mental stress.
  • They often win huge settlements.
  • No such recourse is available in India.

What are the issues in fair treatment and evaluation?

• Employees also feel they are not treated fairly.
• The performance evaluation system is often suspect and the ruthlessness with which so-called under-performance is dealt with will make one squirm.
• Top management will talk of “weeding out dead wood”, an expression that shows scant regard for the worth of human beings.
• Variable pay is heavily skewed in favour of a handful of individuals at the top.
• When those below seethe with resentment at what they perceive as unfair, a toxic culture is inevitable.

Is the public sector a healthier alternative?

• Many public sector firms have a much better work culture.
• Employees may not get huge rewards but they have job security.
• Unions act as a check on the arbitrary ways of top management.
• Inequality in pay is nowhere as glaring as in the private sector.
• Officers at the middle and senior levels put in long hours.
• People have their grievances.
• But complaints about a toxic work culture are rarer.

Way Forward: Time to remedy matters

• Predictable corporate responses: Corporates can be expected to be respond along predictable lines: there will be affirmations of “core values”,
  • a new “code of conduct” for management, programmes to address the “work-life balance”, more “town hall meetings” with employees.
• Effectiveness of these measures: If these could make a difference, we shouldn’t be having a problem in the first instance.
• Role of the board of directors: The board of directors should be paying attention to the company’s work culture, providing recourse and initiating corrective measures.
• Challenges with board accountability: Alas, boards tend to be even more disconnected from reality than the management.
  • Moreover, they lack the incentives or the motivation to challenge management.

Conclusion

If we are to address the worst excesses of India’s corporate culture, some form of regulation seems unavoidable. Regulation may get boards to assume responsibility for the work culture, engage with employees at lower levels, and get a sense of what’s going on. The Nirbhaya episode caused a paradigm shift on the issue of women’s safety. One, hopes that Sebastian’s untimely demise will likewise turn out to be a defining moment for India’s workplace culture. Thus, there is a need for addressing India’s toxic corporate culture requires urgent regulation and intervention.