[screen 1]
A foreign influence operation is detected on Facebook. Does Twitter know to look for it? When researchers identify manipulation tactics, do platforms adapt? Can governments share threat intelligence with platforms effectively?
Addressing information threats requires cooperation across platforms, between platforms and governments, and with civil society. Understanding this cooperation ecosystem is essential for effective defense.
[screen 2]
Why Cooperation Matters
Most threats span multiple platforms:
- Foreign operations operate across Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok simultaneously
- Banned actors migrate between platforms
- Manipulation tactics spread across services
- Harmful content gets cross-posted
Effective response requires coordination that no single actor can achieve alone.
[screen 3]
Platform-to-Platform Cooperation
Platforms share information about threats through various mechanisms:
Hash sharing databases: Known child exploitation imagery, terrorist content
Coordinated inauthentic behavior: Information about removed networks
Malware and phishing: Security threat intelligence
Crisis response: Coordinating during breaking events
Cooperation helps, but competitive dynamics and different policies complicate coordination.
[screen 4]
The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT)
Created 2017 by Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube:
Purpose: Coordinate responses to terrorist content
Key activity: Hash-sharing database for known terrorist content
Evolution: Expanded beyond original members to 20+ platforms
Effectiveness: Rapid removal of terrorist propaganda after attacks
Concerns: Who defines “terrorism”? Scope creep? Accountability?
GIFCT demonstrates potential for platform cooperation but also raises governance questions.
[screen 5]
Crisis Response Cooperation
During crises (attacks, disasters, conflicts), platforms sometimes coordinate:
- Elevated content review for misinformation
- Boosting authoritative sources
- Sharing information about manipulation operations
- Cross-platform policy enforcement
Examples include responses to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and election interference attempts. Ad hoc coordination during Ukraine conflict showed potential.
[screen 6]
Platform-Government Cooperation
Platforms interact with governments in multiple ways:
Legal requests: Court orders for data or content removal
Threat intelligence: Government sharing information about foreign operations
Consultation: Input on policy development
Enforcement cooperation: Supporting DSA and other regulation implementation
Crisis communication: Coordinating during security threats
Cooperation varies by jurisdiction and political relationship.
[screen 7]
Government Requests for Content Removal
Governments regularly request content removal:
Legal process: Court orders based on national law
Emergency requests: During crises without full legal process
Voluntary requests: Asking platforms to remove content not clearly illegal
Statistics: Tens of thousands of requests annually to major platforms
Transparency: Platforms report these in transparency reports
Balance between respecting local law and avoiding authoritarian censorship is challenging.
[screen 8]
Threat Intelligence Sharing
Governments share intelligence about foreign influence operations:
FIMI detection: Government intelligence about foreign operations
Attribution support: Helping platforms understand actor identities
Trend analysis: Pattern recognition across classified sources
Advance warning: Alerts about anticipated operations
Challenges:
- Classification concerns
- Timeliness
- Platform trust in government information
- Political sensitivity
More systematized in recent years but still ad hoc.
[screen 9]
Platform-Researcher Cooperation
Researchers need platform data; platforms need external validation:
Data access partnerships: Providing data for academic research
Bug bounty programs: Rewarding security vulnerability discovery
Research collaborations: Joint studies on platform effects
Consultation: Researchers advising on policy
Tensions:
- Privacy vs research needs
- Platform control over research agenda
- Selective data provision
- Researcher independence
DSA mandates researcher access, potentially improving cooperation.
[screen 10]
Fact-Checker Partnerships
Platforms partner with independent fact-checkers:
Third-party fact-checking programs: IFCN-certified fact-checkers review content
Platform response: Reducing distribution of false content, adding labels
Funding: Platforms often fund fact-checking operations
Coverage: Multiple countries and languages
Effectiveness debates:
- Corrections reach fewer than false claims
- Labels sometimes increase belief (backfire effect)
- Fact-checkers overwhelmed by volume
- But: Some evidence of reduced spread
[screen 11]
Civil Society Cooperation
NGOs and advocacy groups work with platforms:
- Reporting harmful content and coordinated campaigns
- Providing expertise on specific issues (hate speech, child safety, etc.)
- Pressure campaigns for policy changes
- Monitoring platform commitments
- Collaborative policy development
Relationship ranges from partnership to adversarial depending on issue and platform.
[screen 12]
Cross-Border Cooperation
Information threats ignore national borders, requiring international cooperation:
EU-US cooperation: Information sharing on foreign influence
Five Eyes intelligence sharing: Extended to platform threat intelligence
Interpol and Europol: Law enforcement coordination
OECD and G7: Policy development and coordination
Regional networks: Southeast Asian, Latin American cooperation
Effectiveness limited by different legal frameworks and political relationships.
[screen 13]
Information Sharing Challenges
Cooperation faces multiple obstacles:
Competition: Platforms are business rivals
Privacy: Legal limits on data sharing
Trust: Concerns about how information will be used
Standardization: Different data formats and categorization
Speed: Urgent threats require rapid sharing
Volume: Too much information to process effectively
Liability: Legal risk from sharing potentially wrong information
[screen 14]
The API Access Question
Researchers and watchdogs need programmatic access to platform data:
Arguments for open APIs:
- Enable independent monitoring
- Support research on platform effects
- Democratize platform oversight
Platform concerns:
- Privacy violations
- System abuse and scraping
- Competitive intelligence extraction
- Security risks
Many platforms have restricted API access in recent years, hampering research. DSA requires researcher access but implementation details matter.
[screen 15]
Private Messaging Challenges
End-to-end encrypted messaging creates cooperation dilemmas:
- Platforms can’t access content to moderate
- Law enforcement can’t access for investigations
- But: Encryption protects privacy and security
- Proposals for compromises (client-side scanning) are contentious
No consensus on balancing privacy and safety in encrypted spaces.
[screen 16]
Best Practices for Cooperation
Effective cooperation requires:
Clear protocols: Standardized processes for information sharing
Timely communication: Rapid sharing during urgent threats
Appropriate scope: Focused on genuine threats, not overreach
Accountability: Oversight of how shared information is used
Reciprocity: Information flowing both directions
Privacy protection: Safeguarding user data
Transparency: Public reporting on cooperation activities
Trust building: Sustained relationships, not just crisis response
[screen 17]
Future of Platform Cooperation
Cooperation is likely to increase:
- Regulatory requirements (DSA, Online Safety Act)
- Growing sophistication of threats
- Public pressure for coordination
- Learning from successes and failures
Key questions:
- How to balance cooperation with competition?
- Can small platforms participate meaningfully?
- How to prevent authoritarian abuse of cooperation mechanisms?
- What governance ensures cooperation serves public interest?
The cooperation ecosystem will continue evolving as threats and governance mature.
[screen 18]
Your Role
As users and citizens, you can support effective cooperation by:
- Reporting suspicious coordinated activity
- Supporting independent researchers and fact-checkers
- Advocating for meaningful transparency
- Holding both platforms and governments accountable
- Understanding cooperation complexity (not just demanding perfect solutions)
Effective defense requires whole-of-society approach. Individual contributions create collective resilience.