The ADL's tech challenge: its biggest fight yet

I spoke to Jonathan Greenblatt for a conversation about technology, record levels of American antisemitism, Musk's #BanTheADL attack, and Section 230 reform.

“If I were inventing ADL today… I would probably be technology first,” said Anti-Defamation League National Director and CEO Jonathan Greenblatt at an event in Tel Aviv. “So I would start with a team of engineers, not a team of community professionals. And I would be algorithm-centric, not physical presence-centric. We have a situation where we still need to respond effectively when someone gets harmed, but I think there's technology that allows us to do things much more effectively than we're doing right now.”

The comment was a stark admission that the organization is not meeting the challenge set upon it in its fight against antisemitism. Israel’s war with Hamas has emboldened those on both the Left and Right to speak up on their criticisms of ‘Zionism’ online in a thinly veiled attempt to express their contempt for Jewish people more widely. Social media platforms have since become places where people can attack Jews freely, often with the companies having to slowly catch up with the supply of new comments each day.

Founded in 1913, the ADL is the oldest anti-hate organization in America and is focused on fighting these very types of attacks. In the last few years, it has recorded the highest levels of antisemitic sentiment among Americans; starting in the aftermath of the 2016 election with overall anti-Jewish harassment, vandalism, and violence increasing by 900% in the last five years alone.

Jonathan confirms at the Tel Aviv event that from his own research, 24% of U.S. citizens now hold “intense antisemitic attitudes” - up from 8-12% in 2019. So it is safe to say the organization has somewhat of an uphill battle in reversing these sentiments seen online and in the ‘real’ world.

This week I spoke to Jonathan directly for a story on CTech. Much of that final piece related to Startup Nation and its role within Israel during wartime, with the main message highlighting his view that “Israeli innovation can be the foundation for peace across the entire region”.

However, as is often the case with any interview, we spoke about many other issues relating to his work and the state of the world today. The conversation encouraged me to post our full discussion below to be read more widely.

We spoke about the ADL’s role in changing times, the return of American antisemitism, and some of the ways social media platforms can help combat hate without impeding on First Amendment rights.

The interview has been edited for clarity.

---

I was wondering if we could follow up on how you described Israeli innovation. You called it ‘the engine of this economy that can be the foundation of peace across the entire region’. What did you mean by that?

I don't think we've ever seen a moment like this before on multiple levels. On one level, Israel has never been in a stronger position economically. It's an OECD country and has one of the most vibrant startup cultures in the world. It's just amazing.

And yet at the same time, it's impossible to deny that post-October 7, there's a lot of pressure on the country and a lot of challenges that were not readily apparent before. But I think one of the hallmarks and one of the real opportunities is how it leans into innovation to rebound from this moment. It is the capacity for innovation and progress in so many fields that I think gave me a lot of hope for the country.

I think there's a remarkable opportunity if it can really lean into innovation as a means to engage countries in the region and engage people around the world who see Israel for the true miracle that it is. So I have a lot of optimism, even though it's a hard moment.

I’m interested in the experience you had during the Obama Administration. How did that influence anything that you see going on today? How much has the world changed since those days?

When I worked for the president I ran the Office of Social Innovation, which was a team working in the West Wing. I was very much focused on how we can use innovation to accelerate economic recovery and boost job creation. At that time, I was not focused on the issues of fighting hate, certainly not issues of the Middle East, but I saw how you could use innovation to accelerate growth in particular areas.

By thinking out of the box, forging public-private partnerships, and trying to do things differently, you could identify real and viable opportunities for a real and viable impact. I think I took some of those lessons and applied them here at ADL. We lean into innovation partnerships. At the ADL, we have done things like our sports leadership council bringing together the ADL, the NAACP, and all the major professional and amateur sports organizations in America… We've been able to do some really interesting work around that. I also think about our JLens effort, which is a nonprofit we acquired three years ago focused on shareholder activism.

This was a very innovative startup that was making an impact and we acquired them and now have several hundred million dollars in Assets Under Management. It has allowed us to engage on some of these interesting issues because we were concerned about BDS in the boardroom.

So I think what I learned in the White House in the Office of Innovation was to build different kinds of partnerships that are value-added, to think outside the box, and to color outside the lines. And also working with the West Wing was incredibly high-pressure and incredibly intense. It was the opposite of a 9-5 job. And so I certainly leaned into that. Those skills and those disciplines have been very useful for me in this role at ADL.

I'm sure, especially with the pressure you must face as a somewhat public figure in such a controversial area of the world today. I'm aware of some of the blowback that ADL got last year from Elon Musk with the #BanTheADL campaign and accusing you of bias.

But then you got blowback because you supported his remarks after October 7. So there's been a bit of a back-and-forth there - what's the situation like now? What's your relationship with X and Musk, if any?

Social media is really a super spreader of antisemitism and hate. But even more broadly, think about the implications of technology and what the potential downside is as well as the upsides - because there is an upside here.

Through our Center for Technology Society [CTS], we work with everyone from Alphabet to Zoom… including what was once Twitter, which is now X. We've helped these folks when they want to understand language, an image, or meme and if there is a problem. So there's a back-and-forth relationship, and my view is that we need to collaborate with the industry. We have to find ways to align interests.

This brings me to how we worked actively with all of them, including with X. Whereas we were happy with them, that doesn't mean we won't criticize them if we think they get it wrong. And we've done that again with different companies over time, and we've also done that with X. I started my dialogue with Elon before he completed his acquisition of the company. We have a number of friends in common, and I've engaged with him and [X CEO] Linda Yaccarino since she came on board.

We don't always agree, but we have a respectful relationship where we communicate openly. We praise them if they get it right, and we'll call them out when we think they get it wrong. I think they understand what ADL's role is. And I think there's mutual respect, so there's still a work in progress in some ways, and we'll just continue to try to do what we can to be helpful.

I know you give college campuses grades based on how they tackle antisemitism. If you were to grade him, what would you give?

I wouldn't really answer that question, because if you look at what we do on the campuses, we have done very exhaustive research, and we've evaluated the universities on the basis of a set of empirical measures. It's a very transparent grading model. Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you how they're doing, and I wouldn't just say something without having the evidence to back it up. It's a work in progress. We continue to monitor. We'll praise them when they get it right, and we'll point out when they get it wrong.

That's a very diplomatic answer. Can you talk to me a bit about your role at the Real Facebook Oversight Board?

The Real Facebook Oversight Board was set up by [British journalist] Carole Cadwalladr in 2020. We have been pretty outspoken on the issues of Facebook, and specifically, ADL led the effort called Stop Hate for Profit. This was an economic action that resulted in a number of their biggest advertisers coming off the platform. They failed to take action against extremism online and it led to a series of concrete changes such as hiring their VP of Civil Rights, banning Holocaust denialism, and bringing down white supremacists.

It's been a critic in many ways of the [official] Oversight Board… At the end of the day, the reason why I joined is that I don't think Facebook needs to delegate these issues to some third-party entity. I think the company should be accountable and take responsibility for making the right decisions. I don't see a need to have some external entity on which they can lay blame if the decisions go wrong.

This is one of the most sophisticated, innovative, and profitable companies on planet Earth. I think they can do more to take responsibility for making sure that their platform is as inclusive and non-extremist as possible.

One of the common safety nets that these platforms have is Section 230, so they're not held liable for the content on their platforms. What would you say to those who want to reform Section 230 and crack down on some of these problems?

If we want to clean up and make social media more safe, Section 230 reform is the key measure to implement. There is no doubt in my mind that if these companies simply could be held liable for everything, it would change almost overnight.

We should acknowledge that user-generated content is responsible for the web and the information ecosystem that we know today, from Wikipedia to Yelp to Google Maps. At the same time, there need to be much stronger rules of the road.

Publishing content that is intentionally inciteful is not just well beyond the remit of the First Amendment. It should be beyond the pale of what these companies consider acceptable. So [Section 230 reform] would change the way that our information ecosystem works, but in the service of a safer, more stable society.

Personally, I think that we are at the precipice now of real change coming. And I think there was a 10 or 15-year Wild West on the internet but by the time my kids will be teenagers in the future, the whole social media landscape is going to change.

I couldn't agree more. There have been scholars like Jonathan Haidt and others who have done some breakthrough research, and offered some incredibly important perspectives on the damage it’s doing to young kids, a whole generation of people. But I also think you can see the level of divisiveness in our society today. The lack of a common narrative, the lack of a shared understanding of facts, and just the degree of tension in all of us are fed by algorithms which offer content and which amplify the most damaging stuff.

I understand the arguments about free speech. We have free expression in all other quarters of society, but we simply hold the broadcasters or the publishers responsible for what they produce and amplify. And the same thing should be true here. That won't solve all our problems, but the notion is true for many of these companies.

These are some of the most sophisticated, innovative, and profitable firms not just in business today but in the history of capitalism. So, yes, they should be accountable for what they make count. It's quite simple.

What are your views on TikTok in all of this and the ways that it is influencing this dialogue?

In an American context and an Israeli context, there are national security considerations that are beyond my purview. But with respect to what I'm focused on, which is fighting antisemitism and all forms of hate, TikTok, like so many of the other services, amplifies some of the worst voices. Even before October 7, antisemitic and other hateful content often spread virally on TikTok in a way that exceeds the velocity of this kind of content on other platforms because of the nature of how the algorithm works, the extraordinary reach of the service, and its almost addictive nature.

I think TikTok is problematic for some of these attributes, which are not unique to TikTok, even if they are amplified there. But the same issues we have with YouTube, Instagram, and the video feature on Facebook, we have TikTok. They all need to be addressed.

In my conversation with the management of TikTok, there seems to be a desire to make a difference. There seems to be an intense necessity to see the results the way that we want, but there seems to be a desire to get this right. There's clearly, though, lots more to do. Most of these companies take the perspective of ‘if it ain't broke, don't fix it’. And so in terms of generating profits in terms of expanding their user base, in terms of attracting first-rate advertising, all those things are working so they think they can take care of their own issues.

I think Silicon Valley in general has a very libertarian, laissez-faire attitude that pushes back against legislative interventions. If you look at history, technology, and how it came together, there's a desire to do this on their own. In the United States, the leading players went out west and forged their own companies. They did it their own way. I think that ethos remains a powerful driver of the culture.

I have a final question for you regarding the 2024 US Election. What are the repercussions of either a return to a Trump White House or a continuation of a Biden White House? How is this going to affect Jews in Israel and your work at the ADL assuming that Biden or Trump will be the president next year?

We're a nonpartisan organization, so we don't take a position on particular candidates or political parties. That being said, I think this is a particularly fraught time in the United States, in part because of the election. We have two candidates who each have their strengths and weaknesses. We were very outspoken during the Trump years because we were concerned about rising extremism - and we saw a rise in antisemitism from 2016 to 2020.

And then, of course, under Biden antisemitism has continued to increase and it's intensified. We're going to be focused on fighting hate irrespective of who the eventual resident in the Oval Office is. It doesn't matter who's in charge: we're going to remain focused on the case.