Tech companies do some weird stuff from time to time. I have to say Meta’s launching of AI influencers is one of the weirdest and most ill-advised things I’ve seen a tech company do in some time.
I didn’t have to look past Liv, the first AI-influencer I came across, so see how incredibly stupid and offensive this was from Meta. What Meta had done was my first encounter of digital Black face.
What is Black Face?
Blackface, as a concept, has been around for years. Generally speaking, Black face is when a person, typically of non-Black heritage, applies makeup or paint to darken their skin tone to imitate the appearance of a Black person.
This practice originated in 19th-century minstrel shows in the United States, where white performers used exaggerated makeup, often with stereotypical and mocking portrayals, to depict Black people. These performances perpetuated racist stereotypes and dehumanised Black individuals.
Black face has also been a point of discussion in Europe, most notably around Dutch and Belgian festive celebrations. Schwarze Piet, or Zwarte Piet, is a character portrayed in Black face both in Dutch and Belgian folklore associated with the celebration of Sinterklaas. The character has faced significant criticism in recent decades, particularly from anti-racism activists, who argue that the character perpetuates racist stereotypes and reflects a colonial legacy.
Critics highlight that the Black face makeup, exaggerated features, and servile role of the character evoke offensive caricatures of Black people. Protests and debates surrounding Zwarte Piet occur annually during the Sinterklaas season.
While Black face was most prominent in the past, its legacy persists, and it is widely condemned today as a racist and offensive practice. It symbolises systemic racism, historical oppression, and the exploitation of Black culture for entertainment. Understanding and addressing the harm associated with Black face is a crucial part of promoting racial sensitivity and respect.
Meta’s Digital Black Face
Meta launched AI-influencers and quickly took them back down after witnessing a fast backlash. As I mentioned, the one that I first saw and was so clearly wrong to me was “Liv”.
None of this account is a real person. The entire project was created to in some way have Meta profit from mimicking Black culture, aesthetics, and experiences without involving or benefiting real Black creators. Instead of investing in real members of the Black community, Meta opted to simulate support.
Meta’s AI-influencers were only available in the United States. According to publicly available data, in 2022 less than 5% of Meta’s workforce in the U.S. identified as Black. This likely means the vast majority of the people who worked on these AI influencers were either Asian or White.
It’s hard to argue against this creating parallels to historical Black face practices where white performers mimicked Black individuals for entertainment and profit, often perpetuating harmful stereotypes.
Meta’s Hypocrisy
In 2020, Meta (then Facebook) responded to Black Lives Matter protests by committing substantial resources to support Black communities and address systemic inequities. The company announced $200 million in investments targeting Black-owned businesses, creators, and non-profits, alongside initiatives like “Lift Black Voices” to amplify Black narratives.
Meta also pledged to diversify its workforce, aiming to double the representation of Black and Latino employees in leadership by 2023. These efforts were presented as part of a broader $1.1 billion investment in marginalized communities, showcasing Meta’s public commitment to racial justice and equity at a time of heightened societal focus on these issues.
However, recent developments, such as Meta’s creation and swift removal of AI-generated influencers, some of whom were designed to represent Black identities, stand in stark contrast to these earlier efforts.
In fact, instead of supporting real members of the Black community, Meta bypassed real Black influencers and creators who could authentically tell their own stories, share their culture, and benefit economically. This denies actual Black people the opportunities and platforms they deserve in digital spaces, perpetuating a form of cultural and economic exclusion.
This dissonance highlights the gap between the company’s stated values and its current practices, raising questions about the sincerity and sustainability of its earlier commitments to social equity.
Even More Digital Black Face Problems
AI-generated influencers are often programmed to adhere to superficial, stereotypical traits associated with Blackness, such as physical features, language, or fashion trends. These simplified depictions reduce the richness and diversity of Black identities to marketable tropes, echoing how Black face historically caricatured Black people in reductive ways.
Unlike real creators, AI influencers do not have lived experiences to ground their content. They cannot face accountability for any offensive or harmful portrayals they perpetuate. This removes the human nuance and responsibility inherent in representing any identity, leading to depictions that may harm marginalised communities without recourse.
Finally, Black face originated in a context of systemic racism, where white individuals had the power to exploit Black identities for their own gain. Similarly, digital Black face reflects and reinforces the power imbalance where tech corporations control representation and profit from Blackness without materially supporting or empowering Black communities.
Ultimately, I have absolutely no idea how this terrible idea got past ideation, let alone being published and live only to be removed almost immediately. Well, looking at Meta’s diversity in employment stats does give a fair idea how this happened.
There were other AI influencers too and they are potentially just as offensive, but I’m focused on this problematic example alone for now.
