The Board is not what it purports to be it cannot and will not exercise anything that can remotely be described as "oversight" over Facebook's content management system. This experiment raises some complicated issues about governance and decision-making, and I will try to be as concise as I can. The Board has also agreed, at Facebook's request, to decide whether ex-President Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts were improperly terminated in the aftermath of the January 6 riot at the Capitol. In December of last year, the Board revealed the details of the first six cases it would be deciding, and it has recently issued its decisions in those cases. That body-now called the "Facebook Oversight Board"-recently began operation. ![]() Later that year, he announced that Facebook would create an "Independent Governance and Oversight" committee by the close of 2019 "to advise on content policy and listen to user appeals on content decisions." ![]() "could imagine some sort of structure, almost like a Supreme Court, that is made up of independent folks who don't work for Facebook, who ultimately make the final judgment call on what should be acceptable speech in a community that reflects the social norms and values of people all around the world." “We believe the board’s work has been impactful, which is why we asked the board for input into our cross-check system,” the company said, “and we will strive to be clearer in our explanations to them going forward.In April 2018, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, facing intense public pressure to do something about the proliferation of false or misleading information appearing on the platform, said that he In a statement, Facebook thanked the board for issuing its transparency report. Others have pointed out that it gives Facebook the ability to punt on difficult decisions. It was founded and is funded by Facebook, and critics have questioned whether the board has true autonomy. ![]() ![]() “Right now, it’s clear that by not being transparent with users, Facebook is not treating them fairly.”įacebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, has repeatedly referred to the board as the “Facebook Supreme Court,” but in practice, the group has no legal or enforcement authority. “We know these cases are just the tip of the iceberg,” the group said. The group said it had received more than half a million appeals from users trying to understand why something was taken off the site. On Thursday, the group criticized Facebook for not being open with users about policies that led some content to be deleted. “The credibility of the Oversight Board, our working relationship with Facebook and our ability to render sound judgments on cases all depend on being able to trust that information provided to us by Facebook is accurate, comprehensive and paints a full picture of the topic at hand,” the group said in a blog post after publishing the report.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |