What I am suggesting is that all of this - the oversight board, the 9,000-plus public comments it received while deliberating on Mr. Trump’s account at some unspecified date in the future, when it presents less risk of fomenting violence. YouTube, for example, has said only that it will reinstate Mr. I’m also not saying that other social media platforms are better than Facebook at governing themselves in a transparent and consistent way. government would be better at drawing the boundaries of online speech than a corporate advisory panel. Zuckerberg’s making these calls on his own is a good thing, or that the U.S.
#Facebook oversight trump boarddoueklawfare free#
From what I know, the board is composed of thoughtful people who care deeply about fairness and free expression, some of whom are agitating for a bigger remit.
But since this is all corporate Calvinball anyway, I’m not sure the distinction means much.)ĭon’t get me wrong: I’m not saying the oversight board is a useless experiment, or that nothing productive will come from it. (Technically, Facebook was allowed to ignore the board on this point because its statement was a nonbinding recommendation, rather than an official decision.
Facebook responded by saying that it would do no such thing, and that it disagreed with the oversight board’s assessment that such posts did not create an imminent risk of harm. In February, the company rejected the panel’s call to be more lenient with users who posted endorsements of Covid-19 treatments that contradicted the advice of health officials, such as a user who endorsed the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to treat the virus. The board has overturned Facebook’s decisions in the majority of the cases it has reviewed so far, and Facebook has pushed back in several instances. That paradoxical setup - an oversight board with no legally enforceable powers of oversight - created tension even before the decision on Wednesday. They funded the group through a legally independent trust, filled it with hyper-credentialed experts and pledged to abide by its rulings. Zuckerberg and other Facebook executives did everything they could to convince a skeptical public that the oversight board would have real teeth. Zuckerberg and his team decided, they were sure to inflame the online speech wars and make more enemies.īefore the decision on Wednesday, Mr. Trump’s presence on Facebook as fundamentally incompatible with their goal of reducing harmful misinformation and hate speech. Zuckerberg and his lieutenants, accusing them of politically motivated censorship.įacebook faced plenty of pressure in the other direction, too - both from Democrats and civil rights groups and from employees, many of whom saw Mr. When they finally did, Republicans raged at Mr. The former president rode Facebook to the White House in 2016, then tormented the company by repeatedly skirting its rules and daring executives to punish him for it. Zuckerberg would be more eager to avoid than the one about Mr. Zuckerberg and his policy team from criticism.
If it worked, the oversight board would take responsibility for making the platform’s most contentious content decisions, while shielding Mr. (In 2018, for example, he got personally involved in the decision to bar Alex Jones, the Infowars conspiracy theorist.) But high-profile moderation decisions were often unpopular, and the blowback was often fierce. Zuckerberg had been called in as Facebook’s policy judge of last resort. The oversight board also served another purpose. Zuckerberg told Ezra Klein in a 2018 Vox podcast. “I think in any kind of good-functioning democratic system, there needs to be a way to appeal,” Mr. Zuckerberg first pitched the idea of a “Facebook Supreme Court” several years ago, he promoted it as a way to make the company’s governance more democratic, by forming an independent body of subject matter experts and giving them the power to hear appeals from users.
0 kommentar(er)
