Six of the nine independent experts on the advisory board of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) resigned on Monday, according to a letter seen by WIRED and interviews with three of the departing advisers, saying the tech companies that run the consortium had gutted their ability to hold anyone accountable.
The break traces back to a July email from Meta vice president Nell McCarthy, who oversees content policy. Meta currently chairs GIFCT's operating board. The companies wanted to "refresh" the advisory committee, she wrote — a plan under which new members would be appointed by the tech companies rather than elected by existing members, and the body would be barred from evaluating the consortium's performance or issuing recommendations together.
The resignation letter was blunt: the advisers said their appeals 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. "A body that cannot scrutinise, take a position, or evaluate is not an advisory body at all," it said. "It is decoration and accountability theatre."
GIFCT, whose independent advisory committee dates to 2020, counts roughly 35 member companies, with Microsoft and YouTube among the long-time board members. Its small staff shares threat intelligence on violent extremist content and commissions research. A spokesperson said the proposed changes were "informed by several rounds of feedback" and are not final.
The timing is awkward. Generative AI has made extremist content cheaper to produce and harder to triage, and researchers describe newer collectives using AI-assisted scams to coerce young victims into violence. Two advisers spoke anonymously, citing fear of retaliation from the Trump administration and congressional Republicans who have investigated content-moderation groups. Last Friday, the full 17-member panel had already written to McCarthy objecting to the plan.
As one departing expert put it, abolishing independent scrutiny may look politically convenient now — but "they are going to regret it in the longer term."
