Christchurch Call to Action loses government funding – that’s a good thing

For the past five years, governments have tried to rein in tech giants by regulating the types of content shared on social media platforms. But on July 1, the New Zealand government did the opposite. Instead of regulating, the government transformed its Christchurch Call to Action to Eliminate Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content into a nongovernmental organization. It may seem counterintuitive that the government could have more influence over content moderation policy by giving up its role over tech companies, but the move was necessary to ensure the Call’s success in the years to come.

The Christchurch Call to Action (Call) was launched five years ago after a gunman attacked two mosques in New Zealand in a horrific attack that killed 51 worshippers. The shooter carefully planned a live broadcast of his 17-minute attack on Facebook to go viral. And it did. Within 24 hours, platforms like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and Reddit had removed millions of copies of the video. Reeling from the crisis, the governments of New Zealand and France have partnered with other governments, technology companies and civil society to establish the Christchurch Call to Action, a multi-stakeholder initiative to ensure that something like this never happens again.

At its core, the Call is a set of 25 commitments made by tech companies and governments to stop the spread of terrorist and violent extremist content (TVEC) online. The initial structure of the Call followed the established playbook of internet policy experts by creating a multi-stakeholder initiative in which governments and tech companies work closely with civil society and academia to find “whole-of-society” solutions to intractable problems. In the five years since the Call was founded, the group has developed new crisis response protocols, helped companies develop robust content moderation policies, launched research projects on algorithmic bias, and consistently pushed for more action from all stakeholders to eliminate TVEC online.

Given this track record, some may have been surprised when the New Zealand government announced in May that it would no longer fund Call. Instead, it would become a nonprofit organization — relying on contributions from charities and tech companies like Meta and Microsoft to support its work. Some critics have argued that this was a political move (Ardern’s party lost the 2023 election), while others have argued that the tech industry has lost interest or that Call has failed to live up to expectations. While there’s some truth to these claims, it’s also true that this new funding structure has the potential to radically improve how Call functions.

Protecting the multi-party connection model

Transforming Call into a self-funded nonprofit organization is critical to giving Call greater global impact for three key reasons.

First, the nonprofit structure ensures that Call remains a multi-stakeholder initiative, rather than being dominated by governments or multilateral institutions such as the United Nations. When Call was created, the New Zealand government understood that efforts by regulators acting alone would not effectively stop the spread of online TVEC. Indeed, since the earliest days of the internet, governments have passed laws banning terrorist content and criminalizing platforms that unwittingly host it. But democratic governments cannot easily ban “lawful but awful” speech without violating the right to free speech, and government officials cannot effectively censor speech on an internet that was designed to promote the free flow of information across geographic boundaries. Therefore, in trying to stop the spread of online TVEC, like-minded governments must work together. But they cannot act alone. This new funding model will force governments and technology companies to engage in the process of achieving global solutions, rather than addressing local problems.

Second, the change in funding structure demonstrates the maturity of the organization and follows the trajectory of other standard-setting institutions in the Internet era. By incubating the program in its early years, New Zealand built trust among the parties and allowed the project to prove its success before a multi-stakeholder group took over. New Zealand is following the path of many other multi-stakeholder initiatives. For example, both the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) began as niche government-led projects but later developed into robust multi-stakeholder initiatives. Although not widely known, the IETF and ICANN are fundamental to the functioning of the global Internet. Call has tried to mirror the funding structures of these multi-stakeholder initiatives to ensure that it can remain a convener for diverse stakeholders and continue its mission to build consensus on solutions that will stem the spread of TVECs on the Internet while upholding freedom of expression.

Third, if Call’s work is truly to help solve the global challenges of content moderation, New Zealand taxpayers cannot be the only ones who “have a stake in it.” Call’s critics argue that large global tech platforms can easily ignore their obligations without any accountability to users, shareholders, or regulators. Ensuring that companies accept the process could therefore help separate the freeloaders interested in a public relations exercise from those seeking significant reforms to stem the spread of TVEC. Cynics argue that the cost of supporting Call will be a pittance for industry giants, many of which already support trust and safety boards, safety committees, or membership in consortiums such as the Digital Trust and Safety Partnership. Tech companies may not always follow the recommendations of such groups; notably, the Meta Oversight Board (where I used to work) received more than $280 million from the company, but Meta implemented its recommendations only 71% of the time. However, for public companies, investing in Call’s operations can lead to greater accountability.

What’s next for the conversation?

The New Zealand government’s decision to end funding for Call is exactly the kind of change needed to help the initiative thrive. But that doesn’t mean Call is on a fast track to success without hard work. Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, in her new role as Call’s Patron, will need to carefully build legitimacy and implement consensus-based solutions. Otherwise, Call will disappear from existence. Her team can do this by using new funding sources to drive stakeholder recruitment from the tech industry and civil society; raise awareness of the work Call is doing; and strengthen the organization’s ability to hold companies and governments accountable for the commitments they have made.

Even if Call can achieve these goals, it must remain flexible and relevant. When policymakers talked about terrorist content five years ago, they were mostly discussing how to stop the spread of ISIS propaganda and beheading videos. But the events of March 15, 2019, fundamentally changed that conversation, with tech companies creating tools to report on more insidious types of terrorism—including the rise of the far right. Indeed, the Christchurch shooting quickly became a rallying cry for white supremacists around the world, inspiring attacks from Buffalo, New York, to Halle, Germany. To counteract this, major platforms introduced new policies that forced terrorists inspired by the Christchurch shooter to turn to less moderated corners of the internet like 4chan, Gab, and Parler. Now, with the widespread availability of generative AI tools, Call stakeholders need to adjust their work to ensure that these new technologies do not aid the spread of TVECs across the Internet. The beauty of multi-stakeholder initiatives is that an organization can easily adapt to new projects and engage experts from all corners of society.

New Zealand had the moral authority to launch Call after the horrific Christchurch attack. But its ultimate success depends on Call’s ability to adapt to the ever-changing nature of the internet. At a time when multilateralism is being challenged by multilateral organizations like the United Nations, Call can stand behind the work it has done to fundamentally address thorny issues around speech and technology through a community-wide approach.