Muting the Marketplace: GARM's Attack on Free Speech
How major corporations are complicit in stifling mainstream perspectives online through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media
Most people who closely follow politics are aware of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the censorship of conservative views online. However, few people understand the direct connection between these two.
The World Economic Forum (WEF)
The WEF has come under increased scrutiny in recent years for its “Great Reset Initiative”, launched in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Great Reset is aimed at reshaping the global economy and society in response to pressing global issues. Specifically, it advocates for a stakeholder economy over traditional shareholder capitalism, prioritizing equity over merit, and focusing on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria in investment decisions rather than return on investment (ROI).
(Fabrice Coffrini | Afp | Getty Images)
The priorities of The Great Reset are in direct conflict with free market capitalism which has been the single greatest system for alleviating world poverty and raising living conditions across the globe. There is much more to life than markets, but the assault on a system that has helped billions of people has rightfully raised concerns about the trustworthiness of the WEF and its various global initiatives.
According to the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World: 2017 Annual Report
The Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM)
Perhaps the most influential initiative of the WEF is its Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). Created in 2019 by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), GARM is described as a flagship project of the WEF’s “Platform for Shaping the Future of Media, Entertainment and Culture”. GARM seeks to suppress and demonetize “harmful content” online as defined by its Brand Safety Floor + Suitability Framework (BSF). The original guidelines were developed in coordination with the European Commission, Consumers International, Reporters without Borders, ADL, the NAACP, and other NGOs. GARM is run by a Steering Team which includes its founding members – P&G, Unilever, Mars, Diageo, GroupM, 4As, ISBA, ANA, and the WFA. This team sets the priorities of GARM and reports to the WFA Executive Committee.
GARM’s safety framework requires its members to label child pornography, explicit sexual acts, self-harm, human trafficking, slavery, animal cruelty, and promotion of terrorism as content “not appropriate for any advertising support”. Although these parts of the BSF are common sense, its guidelines have been broadened to stifle certain perspectives online. For example, in the summer of the original COVID outbreak, GARM updated the BSF to include “misinformation”, which it does not define, as content ineligible for any advertising support. These new guidelines were subsequently weaponized against anyone questioning the official narrative of mainstream institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO) or the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). The subjective enforcement of the BSF to suppress and demonetize “misinformation” prevented billions of people from getting the information necessary to make an informed decision about their health and prevented dozens of organizations from getting ad revenue crucial to their survival and growth.
A closer look at the BSF reveals many areas that are inherently subjective or nonsensical. Included in the list of content ineligible for advertising support is content that “vilifies” individuals or groups based on gender identity, discusses “debated social issues” in a “negative or partisan context”, spreads “hate speech”, or irresponsibly covers “terrorism/related crimes”.
Would pointing out the incoherence of and destruction caused by modern gender theory count as vilifying groups based on gender identity?
Would showing videos of Black Lives Matter or Pro-Palestine riots count as portraying social issues in a negative or partisan context?
Would showing footage of the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel or pictures of the American hostages they still have be counted as irresponsible treatment of terrorism?
GARM’s Censorship
We don’t have to speculate about GARM’s subjective content moderation and censorship (though GARM claims it does not directly moderate content, it acknowledges that the monetization and moderation of content are “inextricably linked”). Earlier this month, the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) held a hearing on GARM titled “Collusion in the Global Alliance for Responsible Media” that exposed how GARM has weaponized the BSF for political purposes. Examples include:
Encouraging its members to “stop[] all paid advertisement” on Twitter after Elon Musk bought the platform and subsequently bragging about Twitter being “ 80% below revenue forecasts”.
Pressuring Spotify to punish Joe Rogan for spreading “misinformation” about COVID by suggesting that young, healthy people should be more cautious in their decision to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
Instructing its members to vet news outlets through organizations that disproportionately label right-wing news outlets as “misinformation”, thereby suppressing and demonetizing mainstream outlets including The Daily Wire, The New York Post, The Federalist, and RealClearPolitics.
The HJC’s full report titled “GARM’S HARM: HOW THE WORLD’S BIGGEST BRANDS SEEK TO CONTROL ONLINE SPEECH” can be read here.
The Widespread Reach of GARM
If GARM’s influence was contained to a handful of instances, it might not be cause for alarm. However, the weaponization of the BSF is widespread since GARM members account for about 90% of global advertising spend annually (about $1 trillion).
Furthermore, GARM is working to embed its BSF directly into social media platforms through “ad-tech partners”. GARM membership is conditional upon the allowance of “ad-tech partners” to change your business operations, including platform management, to align with GARM’s goals. Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Snapchat, Microsoft (LinkedIn), Pinterest, and X (formerly Twitter) are all currently listed as GARM Members.
Additionally, GARM has already worked with multiple government agencies including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to create tools to aid in the identification of “disinformation” and “misinformation”.
GARM membership makes corporations and government institutions complicit in the suppression and demonetization of conservative voices and cedes control of marketing and governing to far-left activists.
How is GARM so effective in recruiting influential organizations despite the threat it poses?
The size of the organizations GARM recruits allows much of what it does to go largely unnoticed. To the extent GARM is visible, its weaponization of the BSF is dismissed under the guise of “brand safety” measures, as we saw in the HJC hearing.
GARM thrives even inside corporations whose executives are known for championing free speech. This makes sense since all it takes is a membership fee and an appointed GARM representative to be a GARM member. This is presumably why X (formerly Twitter) is still a member of GARM, despite how GARM has actively harmed its business. Though adoption is not currently required for GARM membership, GARM has also drafted a Global Media Sustainability Framework to help the global advertising industry tackle the “climate emergency”.
Coopting Corporate Governance
However, GARM is not the only activist organization stealthily coopting the governance of major corporations. As I laid out in my piece “The Quiet Revolution of Transgender Healthcare Coverage in America”, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is another activist group corroding the governance of major corporations. The HRC accomplishes this through its Corporate Equality Index (CEI) survey which has become standard practice for evaluating corporations on their LGBTQ+ policies and practices. Nearly 75% of the Fortune 500 (the 500 largest public corporations in America) filled out the CEI last year. According to its 2023-2024 CEI report, 90% of the F500 include “gender identity” in their nondiscrimination statements and 73% of the F500 provide coverage of transgender healthcare benefits, including top and bottom surgeries, for their employees and covered dependents.
The HRC actively works with the individual responsible for prior CEI submissions, allowing their work to go largely unnoticed. However, to the extent the CEI is noticed, it is dismissed under the guise of creating an “inclusive work environment” for LGBTQ+ employees.
As you can see, many parallels exist between far-left organizations that are coopting the governance of major public corporations.
While it is sometimes true that we should not attribute to malice that which can be better explained by ignorance, the drivers of these organizations know exactly what they are doing. The HRC openly brags about its influence on these corporations and, as detailed in the House Judiciary Report, GARM admitted it was aware of the antitrust implications of its communication with corporations.
First, these groups get corporations on board with something that seems innocuous (building an inclusive workplace, suppressing inappropriate content online, etc.). Then, once they gain widespread legitimacy, they use it as leverage to impose a far-left agenda.
Moving Forward
1) Creation of an alternative brand safety framework
Since GARM is an initiative of the WEF, reform from the inside is not a viable option. To create change in the long term, there needs to be a compelling alternative to GARM and its BSF. Perhaps Elon Musk who owns the world’s largest free speech platform (X) would be willing to take up the mantle by drafting his own brand safety framework for other media companies to voluntarily adopt.
2) Shareholder action
Shareholders of corporations who are members of GARM should leverage their assets through shareholder proposals to request the company withdraw its GARM membership. GARM membership makes major public corporations complicit in the suppression and demonetization of certain perspectives online that its shareholders undoubtedly hold. These shareholder proposals should request the company publish an online report detailing its relationship with GARM. This report should include information on how long the company was a GARM member, how much it paid in membership fees, the personnel at the company who were appointed GARM representatives, if any members of the company were part of the GARM steering committee (the list of individuals on the steering committee has never been made public), and whether or not the corporation is still abiding by GARM’s BSF Framework.
3) Antitrust lawsuits
The HJC conclusively demonstrated that GARM is violating current antitrust laws which will undoubtedly make itself the target of well-deserved lawsuits. Following the HJC’s hearing on GARM, Elon Musk pledged to “file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators in the advertising boycott racket” and encouraged states to consider criminal prosecution.
4) Congressional Action
Republicans in Congress are likely to conduct further investigations and draft regulatory reforms to address anticompetitive behaviors in the advertising industry.
Let GARM remind us all that we must be alert to the actions of major corporations because they have a disproportionate influence on our lives. If we don’t, that influence will be wielded by activists and harm us.
Update: On August 9th, 2024, GARM discontinued all its activities. This was announced in a post on the World Federation of Advertisers’ website. The WFA said GARM “is a small, not-for-profit initiative, and recent allegations that unfortunately misconstrue its purpose and activities have caused a distraction and significantly drained its resources and finances. WFA therefore is making the difficult decision to discontinue GARM activities.”
In reality, GARM was scared to face Elon Musk in court after they were exposed in the HJC hearing. It is encouraging to see what happens when we shine a spotlight on evil and when people with power and influence wield it in an uncompromising, just manner.
However, make no mistakes. The battle against online censorship is far from over.
Great work! Thanks for your efforts.