Social media giant Facebook confirmed on Monday that it
designates the Taliban a terrorist group and bans it and content supporting it
from its platforms.
But Taliban members have reportedly continued to use
Facebook's end-to-end encrypted messaging service WhatsApp to communicate
directly with Afghanis despite the company prohibiting it under rules against
dangerous organisations.
A Facebook spokesperson said the company was closely
monitoring the situation in the country and that WhatsApp would take action on
any accounts found to be linked with sanctioned organisations in Afghanistan,
which could include account removal.
On Twitter, Taliban spokesmen with hundreds of thousands of
followers have tweeted updates during the country's takeover.
Asked about the Taliban's use of the platform, the company
pointed to its policies against violent organisations and hateful conduct but
did not answer Reuters questions about how it makes its classifications.
Twitter's rules say it does not allow groups who promote terrorism or violence
against civilians.
The Taliban's return has raised fears it will crack down on
freedom of speech and human rights, especially women's rights, and that the
country could become a haven once again for global terrorism.
Taliban officials have issued statements saying they want
peaceful international relations and have promised to protect Afghans.
Major social media firms this year made high-profile
decisions on handling sitting world leaders and groups in power.
These include controversial blocks of former US President
Donald Trump for inciting violence around the January 6 Capitol riot and bans
on Myanmar's military amid a coup in the country.
Facebook, which was long criticised for failing to combat
hate speech in Myanmar, said the coup escalated risks of offline harm and its
history of human rights violations contributed to the ban on the ruling
military or Tatmadaw.
The companies, which have come under fire from global
lawmakers and regulators for their outsized political and economic influence,
often depend on state designations or official international recognitions to
determine who is allowed on their sites.
These also help determine who might be verified, allowed
official state accounts or may receive special treatment for rule-breaking
speech due to newsworthiness or public interest loopholes.
However, the differences among the tech companies' stances
suggest the approach is not uniform.
Alphabet's YouTube, asked whether it has a ban or
restrictions on the Taliban, declined to comment but said the video-sharing
service relies on governments to define "Foreign Terrorist
Organizations" (FTO) to guide the site's enforcement of its rules against
violent criminal groups.
YouTube pointed to the US State Department's list of FTO's
of which the Taliban is not a member. The US instead classifies the Taliban as
a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist," which freezes the US
assets of those blacklisted and bars Americans from working with them.
Complicating matters further, though most countries show
little sign they will recognise the group diplomatically, the Taliban's
position on the world stage may yet shift as they cement control.
"The Taliban is somewhat an accepted player at an
international relations level," said Mohammed Sinan Siyech, a researcher
on security in South Asia and doctoral candidate at the University of
Edinburgh, pointing to talks China and the United States have held with the
group.
"If that recognition comes in, then for a company like
Twitter or Facebook to make a subjective decision that this group is bad and we
will not host them poses complications."
© Reuters