Joel Kaplan was recently appointed as Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer after nearly 14 years at the tech company. His appointment comes at a crucial time when the future of AI regulation and concerns over data privacy are at the forefront of global discussions. Kaplan, known for his close ties to Donald Trump administration, brings a wealth of experience in navigating complex political and business landscapes. In an exclusive interview with businessline, he shares his insights on pressing global issues, including the evolving landscape of AI regulation and the unique policy environment in India. Excerpts:
You recently took over as the global head of Meta’s policy team. What are your key focus areas?
The biggest focus area for me right now is ensuring that there is a regulatory environment that supports open-source innovation around AI. We are in a global race when it comes to AI, and it’s very important that that there be an open-source standard that embraces shared democratic values that we see in India and in the US because if we don’t, what we’re likely to see is a global standard set by China with very different values. That’s the biggest thing that’s changed not as a result of my new role, but as a result of just the tremendous pace of change and innovation over the last couple years around artificial intelligence.
The pendulum in AI regulation has swung from people like Elon Musk calling for a pause in tech development until regulations are in place to now where Trump has paused AI regulation to develop technology. What has changed?
There has been a shift away from an almost exclusive focus by policymakers on the potential harms from AI to a more balanced view that we have to harness the opportunities presented by AI. But in some places, such as the EU, there’s a rush to regulate without really understanding what the implications of that regulation might be for innovation. There is also a recognition that we are in a real global race for a leadership in this new technology, and that if China is not going to pause or wait, we can’t really afford to either.
But why can’t we have some guardrails in place, even as innovation is encouraged?
I think it makes sense for governments to first look at the laws that are already on the books and the protections that those provide and then figure out whether there are any gaps that need to be filled. But, to do so in a way that it’s risk base and not technology-based and that ensures a balanced view between safety and innovation. All of us want to make sure that these new technologies are deployed safely. However, it would be a mistake to embrace regulation that stifles innovation.
There are concerns that AI automation could displace jobs. How does Meta balance AI efficiency with human employment?
For the way we deploy AI in our systems, this hasn’t been an issue to date. It’s mainly about providing people with additional information or helping engineers at Meta do their jobs better. This is an understandable concern that policymakers have, but I think the history of technology is that while some jobs go away, on balance, technological improvements actually create new jobs, more jobs.
India is now thinking about developing its own foundational models. Would you recommend that India should also look at open source models rather than building proprietary models?
Open-source models really democratise access to the technology and provide a much greater opportunities for developers, entrepreneurs, governments to build upon and modify the foundational model. Customise it, whether it’s local language or for specific tasks, host data locally, so they maintain control over it, and it really spreads the benefits of AI technology so that many more people are able to take advantage of it. I think a country like India is particularly well placed to take advantage of it because of the really vibrant developer ecosystem that exists in the country. So, there aren’t very many companies or even governments for that matter who are going to be able to put in the level of investment, that most powerful frontier models require. The question is who’s going to benefit from that investment with proprietary models that benefit only the developers. With an open-source model, all of that benefit rebounds to everyone who is able to download that model for free and build on top of it. We have one-billion downloads of Llama, so that’s a billion opportunities or the developers to basically take advantage of that level of investment ($65 billion). It’s pretty clear to us that open source is the better approach.
Recently, you removed third party fact checkers in the US. How does Meta plan to ensure the accuracy of information on its platforms?
People on our platforms don’t want to see misinformation, but the question then becomes who decides what’s information, and how do you give people additional context to understand what’s true, and what’s not true. The third-party fact-checking programme was prone to bias, especially in the US. Many studies have shown that community-based system with community notes, can build more trusts in the system and is also more scalable. There is a handful of third-party fact checkers in every country that eliminated how many things that it can review. We will make sure we get the system right before we look to expanding it elsewhere. So, for now, we’ll continue the third-party checking programme here in India, but we’re hopeful that community note system will be effective, and we’ll be able to launch it in many countries around the world.
How do you view India’s data privacy draft rules? What are your major concerns in this regard?
We’ve been really appreciative of the transparent and consultative process that the Indian government has run. Overall, we think the rules strike a very constructive balance between preventing harm, while still promoting innovation. It can offer a good alternative to the EU approach which really limits innovation. But there are still some areas that we think need clarity with respect to some of the rules around tracking and monitoring users below 18 years. So, we’ll continue to work with the government on that and we also are suggesting additional clarity is needed around the language on consent, to make sure that we and others can continue to offer our services for free in India. But overall, I think it’s been a very constructive process.
The Indian telecom operators have been asking for same service, same rules, especially for WhatsApp. Your thoughts.
For a host of reasons, we don’t think that the OTT players are the same as the telcos and WhatsApp and other OTT providers are subject to regulation under a number of different laws under the IT Rules. We think the government so far has made the right decision in deciding not to apply the Telecom Act to OTT.
How do you see the overall regulatory environment in India compared to other geographies?
We have seen that America innovates, the EU regulates and India innovates for a scale and that is working quite well for India. You have an incredibly robust and dynamic digital ecosystem here and an incredible ecosystem of developers. I think India really has an opportunity to present a different model of regulation to the world that balances protection for consumers with innovation and gets a balance right. That’ll be really an important contribution that the Indian government makes around regulation.
Do you see any headwinds related to Trump’s tariff policy?
What we see is an administration that is very committed to protecting and defending American companies and ensuring that America continues to lead when it comes to technology. And, as far as we’re concerned, that’s a welcome change in focus and we are excited to work with the new US Administration to advance our shared goals for innovation and economic growth.
Is there a worry that being an American company, there will be some sort of retaliation from other geographies?
In the EU, our experience has been that we are already subject to a number of discriminatory regulations and enforcement actions, and what we have now is a US administration that’s making clear that it it is not going to permit its companies to be discriminated against. And we will view those actions as essentially non-tech barriers and respond accordingly. As a US-based tech company we are grateful for the US government’s protection and support of our interest being treated fairly.
We have seen that America innovates, the EU regulates and India innovates for a scale and that is working quite well for India. Joel Kaplan Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer
