Happy Nice Mall

This is a preview of the On Tech With Shira Ovide newsletter, now reserved for Times subscribers. Sign up to receive it in your inbox Three times a week.

Almost Taliban regain power in Afghanistan, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other big internet companies are faced with a disturbing decision: what to do about the online accounts that the Taliban started using to spread their message? establish their legitimacy?

The choice is whether online companies recognize the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan, or whether the group history of violence and oppression. International governments themselves he also deals with it.

I want us to sit back and be bothered by the powers of the internet that operate largely like irresponsible government offices. They don’t do it completely alone, and they really have no other choice. It’s still insane that a handful of unelected tech executives play a role in high-risk global affairs.

One way the Taliban is trying to gain the trust of Afghans is to appear like a legitimate government on social media and internet companies are trying to figure out how to deal with it.

Facebook has banned accounts related to the Taliban for years three-tier policy for “dangerous organizations” and the company aforementioned This week, it announced that it will continue to remove Taliban accounts and posts that support the group. This includes Helpline for Afghan citizens On WhatsApp owned by Facebook. (The Taliban now control a country, but they are not allowed to start a Facebook group.)

Referring to the US sanctions on the Afghan Taliban, YouTube said it would also remove accounts it believed were run by the group. There is no general ban on Twitter but told CNN any post or video must comply with rules that prohibit what it considers to be hate speech or incitement to violence. My colleagues Sheera Frenkel and Ben Decker found examples of pro-Taliban social media accounts and posts. appeared despite these prohibitionsincluding a Facebook page that calls itself a grocer but has recently posted pro-Taliban messages.

These US internet companies are guided by the laws of their home countries and the countries in which they operate, and they take their cues from the international community. But ultimately, these are private companies that have to make their own choices.

It was Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. decided He said in January that President Donald J. Trump’s words could inspire more violence if displayed on their site. excitement had to make a choice When the government of India ordered that the country’s leadership delete what it considers subversive speech and what others believe is fundamental to freedom of speech in a democracy. Facebook (by negligence rather than an active decision) chose not to intervene when Myanmar military personnel turned the social network into a tool for ethnic cleansing.

In any case, unelected technology executives, mostly in the United States, had to make consequential decisions that had repercussions for citizens and elected leaders. And unlike governments, internet companies face almost no liability to the public if people don’t agree with their decisions. Citizens cannot dismiss Mark Zuckerberg.

American corporations have a long and often ugly history of influencing those far from home to protect their interests. Media giants helped start the wars and choose their preferred candidates. The location of Facebook, YouTube and other US internet companies feels different. Their products are so widely used that their effect is not really a choice. They must act like diplomats whether they want to or not.

I almost feel a little sorry for US internet companies. (Almost.) They wanted to change the world, and they did. Now they are so empowered that they have to make tough decisions about an imperfect world. They and we live with the consequences.

Before you go …

• Well-intentioned technology also has disadvantages: My colleague Jack Nicas writes that Apple plans to scan iPhones to remove images of child sexual abuse. received criticism from security and privacy experts. Jack explains the disturbing truth that technology that goes after criminals can harm ordinary people, and that technology that protects ordinary people can help criminals too.

• Self-driving cars are really tough: Bloomberg News reported that some employees at Waymo, Google’s self-driving car sister, lost faith in the advancement of computer-assisted cars. Many big and small things can trigger technology, including a misplaced cable in a car or traffic cones on the roads. (My colleague Cade Metz recently wrote about why self-driving cars are making so much progress, but still has a long way to go.)

• The last internet phenomenon that will pass in five minutes: Vox explains why University of Alabama videos sorority recruitments everywhere TikTok. Videos of people who are confused or angry because they’ve seen sorority videos seem to help these sorority videos get more circulated on TikTok. Is the internet of 2021 fun?!?!

hug this

Request Rube Goldberg mechanism theme song of squeaking rubber chickens from “Jurassic Park”. It’s stupid and I love it. (Thanks to my colleague Erin McCann For sharing this on Twitter.)

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you would like us to discover. You can contact us at. ontech@nytimes.com.

If you have not yet received this newsletter in your inbox, please register here. You can also read History in technology columns.