President & Chief Executive Officer, Clarios International Inc.
Mark Wallace & Hany Farid on The Open Mind: Removing Extremism from the Web
On this week's episode of The Open Mind, Counter Extremism Project CEO Mark Wallace and Dartmouth Computer Science Chair ...
About Mark Wallace
Mark Wallace, president and CEO of Clarios, discussed the continued relevance of lead-acid batteries in electric vehicles during a January 2024 appearance on the Daily Drive podcast. He stated that low-voltage batteries play critical safety and operational roles in EVs, such as powering the vehicle's network when high-voltage batteries are disconnected during charging. Wallace described Clarios as the world's largest low-voltage energy storage company for mobility and noted that automakers, particularly in Europe, seek the company's help in architecting low-voltage networks and providing integrated software solutions. In a 2018 interview on The Open Mind, Wallace, then CEO of the Counter Extremism Project, called on social media companies to remove extremist content from their platforms. He said that technology exists to identify and remove such content, comparing it to methods used against child exploitation material, and argued that companies should be "part of the solution" in establishing guardrails for online safety.
Transcript (30 segments)
A
Alexander Heffner0:00
I'm Alexander Heffner, your host on The Open Mind. In response to Google-owned YouTube's decision to remove sermons from an al-Qaeda operative, one of our guests commented approvingly: 'This action will save lives. No longer will at-risk persons be able to casually encounter this kind of bigotry.' As a society, we must say enough is enough to the extremists' takeover of cyberspace. All responsible social media companies, ISPs, and communications platforms must take action to remove extremists. Those are the important words of Counter Extremism Project CEO Ambassador Mark Wallace. He and his colleague Dr. Hanif Farid, senior advisor and chair of computer science at Dartmouth, lead a nonpartisan organization combating extremist ideologies through financial pressure, narrative countering, and advocacy for smart policies. Gentlemen, congratulations and welcome.
M
Mark Wallace1:22
Thank you. That's quite a wind-up. I feel like one of my family members put that into your mind.
A
Alexander Heffner1:27
No, thank you. Well, I think we have to err on the side of pro-social solutions. Off-camera, I was saying we did a show with the Anti-Defamation League CEO, which I called 'Incubators of Hate.' You are combatting these incubators. What was your process to get YouTube to remove the content?
M
Mark Wallace2:01
It was really a process of cajoling, begging, a little pressure, maybe shame. As critical as we've been of social media companies that haven't done enough, these are great companies with wonderful technologies that have been misused, threatening safety and national security. We started calling on them through calls, letters, emails, testimony. I told them it's like the early automobile industry without airbags—they had to be part of the solution. Now they're catching up, perhaps late, but we should celebrate them for trying. There's still more to do.
A
Alexander Heffner3:20
Dr. Farid, were you surprised they finally took action after so many months or years of petitioning?
H
Hanif Farid3:25
I knew it would happen; it was just a matter of time. This pattern of behavior has been seen for decades. In the mid-2000s, we fought to stop child pornography, and the response was similar: deny the problem, minimize it, argue no technological solutions exist. Over time, with pressure, they eventually agree. I'm encouraged that we now agree the worst content—promoting violence—has no room on platforms. This isn't about stifling free speech; it's about removing content that endangers people. Once agreed, there's a path forward technologically, politically, and legally. We're in early stages, and I'm optimistic.
A
Alexander Heffner5:00
Based on how Google arrived at this decision, what next for the proliferation of bigotry beyond Islamist terrorism? Here, we have an epidemic of hate against immigrants, Jews, and other groups. What inspires hope that companies will take action universally?
M
Mark Wallace5:29
In the Anwar al-Awlaki case, President Obama authorized a drone strike to kill an American in Yemen, yet we protected his speech online through terms of service. We need to decide culturally what we want from social media platforms—our online neighborhoods. I don't want hate in my discussions. We've had a robust free speech debate for centuries; we've concluded some speech isn't acceptable. Companies can make similar decisions. For example, Facebook restricts pornography—a business decision. We hope from cultural and social perspectives, companies will remove the worst parts of the internet, not part of their terms of service, to create a better space.
A
Alexander Heffner7:24
Presumably, those terrorist videos amassed significant views in the millions or billions? Is that accurate?
M
Mark Wallace7:29
Anwar al-Awlaki had an enormous following, and his videos were featured in numerous terrorist attacks. Removing that content is key. I studied terrorism in the 1980s—groups like the Red Army Faction were quaint compared to ISIS or al-Qaeda. They used leaflets; today, they'd use Facebook and secure messaging. Terrorists have taken advantage of the internet, but we haven't caught up culturally or politically.
A
Alexander Heffner8:47
Were those cleric videos monetized, like Infowars? A 2017 New York Times piece discussed monetization emboldening bigotry. Do companies lack incentive to act on terrorists similarly to how KKK videos are monetized?
M
Mark Wallace9:42
You ask the right question about tension not to remove content. With child pornography, tech companies also said it wasn't their business, hiding behind the Communications Decency Act. I have an issue with companies claiming no moral fiber. The same technology to counter child pornography can counter extremism—it's agnostic. We've developed powerful technology to make platforms safer, but Google, Facebook, and Twitter choose not to use it. Partly financial, partly philosophical. But that discussion is over; we've agreed to clean up platforms. Public and institutional pressure is driving this. Platforms realize without cleanup, they have limited shelf life. They must commit—removing al-Awlaki means removing KKK content too.
A
Alexander Heffner12:31
Ambassador, this is where scientific curation—computational elimination of imagery—comes in?
M
Mark Wallace12:38
Exactly. Dr. Farid is the world leader in hashing technology, the technological solution to the moral question. We've culturally decided child pornography and foreign election interference are unacceptable. Now, we've decided extremists using platforms for violence are unacceptable. The moral case is clear. Social media companies are coming around. The technology exists—Dr. Farid developed it with Microsoft and others for child exploitation. Whether it's child pornographers, violent extremists, or Russian bots, they reuse content. We can identify it instantly with algorithms like PhotoDNA and remove it from platforms. The technology exists today—it's accessible, easy, doable, and there's no excuse.
A
Alexander Heffner14:12
How could this be implemented for memes and multimedia content?
H
Hanif Farid14:28
Machine learning and AI won't rescue us anytime soon. Automatically dealing with billions of uploads daily is phenomenally hard. Humans are needed to understand subtlety, nuance, intent, and content. We advocate collaboration: human moderators identify child pornography, hate speech, bomb-making videos—computers struggle with this. Facebook refuses to establish itself as a media company with an editorial board. Asking how much child exploitation they've removed in 15 years reveals large, embarrassing numbers they hide. The science exists; we must use it.
M
Mark Wallace15:38
Next time you have a social media guest, ask about child exploitation removal numbers. They don't want you to know—it's embarrassing and might hurt sales. It's morally wrong. We can do better; the science exists.
A
Alexander Heffner16:02
From a political standpoint, Senators asked how computer programs interpret the Quran. Don't we need editorial equipment to grapple with these challenges?
M
Mark Wallace16:34
We could debate what should be removed, but we're not there yet. If we were, the world would be better. What I can't agree with is the universe of clearly wrong, immoral, illegal content—al-Awlaki, child pornography, Russian bots—that can be easily removed and replicates quickly. Let's agree not to tolerate the most egregious stuff first.
A
Alexander Heffner17:16
You said we've lost shared values on speech. A red herring is the First Amendment debate. Social media companies wrap themselves in it, but they're governed by terms of service. We've concluded some speech isn't acceptable. Trevor Tim of Freedom of the Press Foundation said Oliver Wendell Holmes' 'fire in a crowded theater' notion is obsolete. That's problematic.
M
Mark Wallace18:44
We have a robust First Amendment discourse developed over centuries. We've concluded some speech isn't acceptable. Let's extend that to social media platforms. Putting a swastika on a temple is hate speech; doing so online should be the same. We should culturally say no more. Companies enabling hate have a legitimate platform, but pressure from media, politicians, and NGOs must be sustained.
A
Alexander Heffner19:38
The argument is that platforms are like phone lines, letting information flow. But they have advertising incentives. Pop-up ads on al-Awlaki videos from prominent companies led to boycotts. Isn't there an incentive not to act?
M
Mark Wallace19:44
The technology front is ongoing. Extremists don't go away—they adapt, like spam or viruses. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook were easily accessible; we've created a slight barrier. We must keep moving the front as adversaries adapt for financial or ideological reasons. Constant technology development is needed to make the internet hostile to these organizations. Currently, it's welcoming.
A
Alexander Heffner20:46
How can we ensure they uphold the al-Awlaki standard for future cleric videos?
M
Mark Wallace20:58
I respect Silicon Valley technologies, but the gods of Silicon Valley are no different than titans of other industries. We want transparency—knowing what they'll remove—and accountability: how much, where, how, and why. Without pressure, there would be no action. That pressure must be sustained.
A
Alexander Heffner22:18
Why aren't American representatives up in arms about this?
M
Mark Wallace22:32
They are. This year, there have been Senate and House hearings, with more to come. The combination of fake news, election tampering, extremism, and child pornography is affecting them personally, especially during re-election. We're seeing bipartisan support for hard questions. It reminded me of tobacco executives—social media CEOs testifying about platform misuse and addictive design. The posture on Capitol Hill is to pressure them to get their act together or face regulation.
A
Alexander Heffner24:28
I'm unconvinced they'll stand up against the purist attitude around the First Amendment, which seems to have too much action. It's ridiculous—it's not the First Amendment.
M
Mark Wallace24:42
It's terms of service. Try to look at pornography on Facebook—you can't. They've decided as a business not to have it, which is free speech in a sense. The First Amendment issue is mind-boggling. Television regulation has been intact since the FCC, but the internet has been the Wild West due to no adopted terms of use or regulation.
A
Alexander Heffner25:18
Thank you, and thanks to our audience. Join us next time for a thoughtful excursion into ideas. Until then, keep an open mind. Visit our website for this program or other interviews, and follow us on social media.