It sits outside of Facebook’s structure to facilitate its independence, and is funded by an independent trust. The Oversight Board was created to help Facebook answer some of the most difficult questions around freedom of expression online: what to take down, what to leave up and why.”įundamentally, the Board acts as an appellate review mechanism for user content. Explaining the need for the Board, Facebook itself has said that as its “community grew to more than two billion people, it became increasingly clear to the Facebook company that it shouldn’t be making so many decisions about speech and online safety on its own. Now, we do have such a forum in place, and it is called the Facebook Oversight Board (“Board”). So, in 2018 Facebook announced plans to create an independent oversight body to review content decisions underpinned by a robust legal framework.
It is hardly surprising that Facebook has faced immense pressure to become more accountable. As Klonick puts it, “through its ‘semipublic rules’ called ‘Community Standards’, Facebook has created a body of ‘laws’ and a system of governance that dictate what users may say on the platform”. There is no doubt that Facebook is one of the most powerful arbiters of online speech.
Without a thorough overhaul of Facebook’s opaque content moderation policies and tools, it’s unlikely that the Oversight Board will ever live up to the demands of its many critics.Facebook exercises extraordinary power over individuals in the digital world, and the grave consequences of what is said on Facebook can easily spill into the physical world too. But for many, the decision once again underscored the board’s deficiencies, as it failed to tackle the deeply rooted problems at the heart of Facebook’s automated content removal system. In September, the Oversight Board ruled that Facebook had indeed unjustifiably removed news content related to the conflict. …the decision once again underscored the board’s deficiencies, as it failed to tackle the deeply rooted problems at the heart of Facebook’s automated content removal system In response to the alleged removal of pro-Palestinian content, nearly 200 Facebook employees issued a signed letter to their employer, requesting an investigation into the company’s content moderation system. By shunting responsibility back to Facebook itself, many critics argued that the board had further exposed its inefficacy.įacebook also faced backlash amid the outbreak of conflict in Israel-Palestine, with the platform accused of political bias and suppression of pro-Palestinian voices. However, the board ultimately avoided making a final decision on the fate of Trump’s account by suggesting that Facebook itself choose what to do with it over the next six months. In May, the Oversight Board ruled that Donald Trump’s Facebook account should not be reinstated following the former president’s suspension from the platform after he was accused of spreading misinformation and encouraging the violent riots at the US Capitol in January. Since its inception, several high-profile cases of content removal by Facebook have been referred to the board.īy shunting responsibility back to Facebook itself, many critics argued that the board had further exposed its inefficacy The Oversight Board is mandated to review difficult decisions made by Facebook on content moderation. To critics, a board funded and appointed by Facebook itself was a woefully inadequate alternative to true accountability and served merely to shield Facebook from legal repercussions for its decisions. In 2021, the Facebook Oversight Board delivered its first decisions, sparking fresh criticism about the board’s effectiveness in holding Facebook to account.ĭigital rights activists have long called for better oversight of Facebook and other social media platforms, citing the urgent need to prevent censorship and ensure freedom of expression online while also curbing misinformation and hate speech.īut when the Facebook Oversight Board was established in 2020, many rejected its legitimacy.
0 kommentar(er)
