Meta has also hired right-wing activist Robby Starbuck as a consultant to assist in addressing what the company refers to as “ideological and political bias” in its AI chatbot. The hiring is part of a settlement agreement following Starbuck’s lawsuit against Meta for allegedly propagating misinformation about him using its AI system.
The Lawsuit That Started It All
Starbuck’s legal fight with Meta started when he found that the firm’s AI chatbot accused him of being involved in the January 6th Capitol riot. In April, Starbuck learned that he was alerted to the misinformation when he was sent a screenshot of Meta’s AI that in error associated him with the Capitol riot and QAnon conspiracy.
The false information purportedly came as Starbucks launched its relentless pressure campaign against the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs of Harley-Davidson. The timing was particularly inopportune as Starbuck was preoccupied with convincing companies to abandon their DEI programs.
Starbucks Record on Corporate Campaigns
Starbucks has gained a reputation for successfully shaming large corporations into canceling their DEI initiatives. His efforts have already secured significant wins, with companies such as Tractor Supply, John Deere, and Harley-Davidson all abandoning their diversity initiatives in response to his public shaming.
These campaigns are most often characterized by social media backlash, public outcry, and boycott calls. Starbucks mobilization power among conservative audiences has been used to get corporate attention and, in the process, policy shifts.
Instead of pursuing the legal case, Meta decided to settle with Starbucks and hire him as an advisor. The terms of the settlement are not disclosed, with Starbucks refusing to disclose whether or not Meta paid him to settle the case in a recent interview with CNBC.
“I’m only one person, but this would cause a lot of problems across the entire industry in terms of politics and election bias, and we wanted to be the first to correct this problem,” Starbuck explained during the interview.
Meta and Starbucks released a joint statement to The Wall Street Journal emphasizing the goals of the collaboration. “Since collaborating on these critical issues with Robby, Meta has made significant efforts to enhance the accuracy of Meta AI and reduce ideological and political bias,” they stated.
Timing Trump’s AI Executive Order
The hiring is part of deeper political realignments around the regulation and debate of AI. President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order to make AI less “woke,” providing a political climate under which companies might feel compelled to respond to perceived liberal bias in their AI.
This is not Meta’s first high-profile legal settlement involving political content. The company previously this year settled for $25 million a 2021 lawsuit brought by President Trump over the suspension of his social media accounts.
Starbucks case is not unique in the annals of AI defamation cases. Other conservatives have sought similar legal tactics with greater or lesser degrees of success. Mark Walters, a conservative radio talker, sued OpenAI in 2023 for defamation, alleging that ChatGPT falsely portrayed him as being accused of embezzling money from a non-profit. Unlike Starbuck, though, Walters’s failed summary judgment was awarded to OpenAI and the defamation case was dismissed in May.
What This Means for Meta’s AI
The hire is a question mark over how big tech firms will approach political bias issues in their AI algorithms. While Meta presents this as enhancing accuracy and diminishing bias, critics could see it as caving to political pressure.
Starbucks’ new position demonstrates that legal pressure, coupled with public campaigns, can in fact shape the way tech firms build and release their AI systems. Whether this policy will be extended to other firms or will bring meaningful change to AI bias remains to be seen.
The action is a significant departure from how one of the world’s biggest social media firms is going about developing AI and could set a precedent for how other technology giants respond to similar political pressure in the future.
