tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/facebook-oversight-board-101717/articlesFacebook Oversight Board – The Conversation2021-11-07T13:11:14Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1698112021-11-07T13:11:14Z2021-11-07T13:11:14ZAs a global infrastructure giant, Facebook must uphold human rights<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429967/original/file-20211103-23-e238vw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C26%2C6000%2C3961&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Seen on the screen of a device in Sausalito, Calif., Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announces the company's new corporate name, Meta, during a virtual event.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source"> (AP Photo/Eric Risberg) </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Facebook — <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/28/tech/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-keynote-announcements/index.html">its new corporate name is Meta</a> — has always wanted to get to know you. Its public goal has ostensibly been to connect people. It’s been wildly successful in doing so by building out what can only be called everyday infrastructure around the world. </p>
<p>There are <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/947869/facebook-product-mau/">3.5 billion people</a> worldwide using Facebook’s suite of products, which includes Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp. As the infrastructure provider, Facebook knows a lot about who its users are, and what they do.</p>
<p>Recently, the company has announced a US$10 billion investment in the “metaverse” — an immersive version of the internet that can only increase Facebook’s hold on citizens via the data it collects about us.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430036/original/file-20211103-23-13jvm2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A woman with blonde hair speaks into a microphone with one arm raised." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430036/original/file-20211103-23-13jvm2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430036/original/file-20211103-23-13jvm2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430036/original/file-20211103-23-13jvm2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430036/original/file-20211103-23-13jvm2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430036/original/file-20211103-23-13jvm2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430036/original/file-20211103-23-13jvm2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430036/original/file-20211103-23-13jvm2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former Facebook employee Frances Haugen speaks during a Senate hearing in Washington, D.C.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This announcement comes at a time when everyone wants to do something about Facebook. Recent reporting on corporate ethics, fuelled by whistle-blower Frances Haugen’s <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-s-senate-testimony/8d324185-d725-4d99-9160-9ce9e13f58a3/">document dump and testimony in the United States Senate</a> — along with a <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-caused-the-unprecedented-facebook-outage-the-few-clues-point-to-a-problem-from-within-169249">six-hour blackout</a> of its services worldwide in October — demonstrate both the scale of Facebook’s reach and the consequences of letting the status quo persist. </p>
<p>But before we fix anything, we need to consider the logic behind determining what ought to be fixed.</p>
<h2>A human rights focus</h2>
<p>In order to effectively regulate data-intensive, privately held global infrastructure like Facebook, we need to prioritize human rights concerns. Upholding human rights can act as the underlying logic for any regulatory framework, and in doing do, provide it with an established, universal ethical heft.</p>
<p>Focusing on human rights means prioritizing the <a href="https://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=68382&section=2">basic values</a> embodied in the United Nations’ <a href="https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights">Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a>: protecting human dignity, ensuring autonomy and equality and “brotherhood” (or, in 2020s parlance, community).
It means understanding that these rights are <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/pages/whatarehumanrights.aspx">indivisible and interdependent</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430066/original/file-20211103-19-vb9poh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A cell phone user thumbs through the privacy settings on a Facebook account" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430066/original/file-20211103-19-vb9poh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430066/original/file-20211103-19-vb9poh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430066/original/file-20211103-19-vb9poh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430066/original/file-20211103-19-vb9poh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430066/original/file-20211103-19-vb9poh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430066/original/file-20211103-19-vb9poh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430066/original/file-20211103-19-vb9poh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Facebook has changed our lives by morphing into a global infrastructure platform.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The benefits and harms of social media affect human beings — the subjects for whom human rights are intended. Facebook, and other companies like it, have changed our lives by becoming global infrastructure, affecting how, when and if we engage with others. Through this process, our lives have become “datafied.”</p>
<p>We need to think more purposefully about how to embed human rights in our digital policies as we increasingly live and find meaning within online environments and contexts. As the UN’s <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf">Guiding Principles</a> on Business and Human Rights affirm, states have a duty to protect human rights. Businesses, however, also have the responsibility to respect human rights.</p>
<h2>A global communications giant</h2>
<p>The focus on calls for reform to date, including Haugen’s explosive Senate testimony, has been centred around content on the social network Facebook built and is best known for. But Facebook is much more than that. </p>
<p>The blackout showed that Facebook is an essential piece of global communications infrastructure. The corporation formerly known as Facebook, and its properties Instagram and WhatsApp, facilitates <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/05/facebook-outage-highlights-global-over-reliance-on-its-services">small business and informal economies</a> around the world. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/05/facebook-outage-highlights-global-over-reliance-on-its-services">It provides login</a> <a href="https://www.marketplace.org/2018/10/04/heres-how-see-what-you-log-facebook/">credentials</a> to <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/why-you-shouldnt-use-facebook-to-log-in-to-other-sites-and-apps/">thousands of other apps</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A woman with long hair in a crowd of other women takes a photo with her phone." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430062/original/file-20211103-23-36ba4y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430062/original/file-20211103-23-36ba4y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430062/original/file-20211103-23-36ba4y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430062/original/file-20211103-23-36ba4y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430062/original/file-20211103-23-36ba4y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430062/original/file-20211103-23-36ba4y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430062/original/file-20211103-23-36ba4y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A small business owner attends a Facebook event in March 2018 in St. Louis, Mo., aimed at helping small businesses and job seekers gain additional digital skills.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Sarah Conard/AP Images for Facebook)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some developing countries in Africa even rely on Facebook <a href="https://globalmedia.mit.edu/2020/04/21/the-rise-and-fall-and-rise-again-of-facebooks-free-basics-civil-and-the-challenge-of-resistance-to-corporate-connectivity-projects/">as a portal</a> to the internet <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55929654">for significant</a> portions of <a href="https://social.techcrunch.com/2018/04/25/internet-org-100-million/">their populations</a>. </p>
<p>And in the very near future, Meta intends to bring another <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-renews-ambitions-connect-world/">billion people online</a> through various internet infrastructure projects.</p>
<p>So how do we regulate a tech giant like Facebook to ensure human rights are upheld? Many cases for regulation have focused on the right of freedom of expression, because that’s how most of us consciously experience it. However, a focus on content moderation is <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona">a losing game</a> at best. </p>
<h2>Human rights tied to freedom of expression</h2>
<p>I’ve written previously about how Facebook has stepped into the void on adjudicating freedom of expression on its network through the <a href="https://oversightboard.com/">Facebook Oversight Board</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-is-stepping-in-where-governments-wont-on-free-expression-156189">Facebook is stepping in where governments won't on free expression</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But freedom of expression is not independent of other rights. The Oversight Board’s <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/empirical-look-facebook-oversight-board">own docket</a> shows that deciding on cases involving freedom of expression does not happen in a vacuum. Other rights — such as the right to non-discrimination, the right to security of the person and the right to life — need to be considered.</p>
<p>Various proposals for how to regulate Facebook and social media are already out there, advocating for <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-we-have-the-regulatory-tools-we-need-to-fix-facebook/">transparency and accountability</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/opinion/facebook-whistleblower-section-230.html">changes to U.S. regulations</a> that currently provide immunity to social media platforms and creating “<a href="https://venturebeat.com/2021/02/06/from-the-election-lie-to-gamestop-how-to-stop-social-media-algorithms-from-hurting-us/">toxicity taxes</a>” in order to tackle the dilemma of content moderation. </p>
<p>The Canadian government now <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-feds-have-chance-to-protect-canadians-from-digital-platform-harms/">has a chance to fix</a> problematic legislation it had previously proposed to curb social media content, which has the potential to erode <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-online-harms-proposed-legislation-threatens-human-rights-1.6198800">other human rights</a> in the process. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/planned-social-media-regulations-set-a-dangerous-precedent-155844">Planned social media regulations set a dangerous precedent</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Meanwhile, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and many states are following the trust-busting strategy, an approach that is <a href="https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-facebook-inc-federal-trade-commission-district-of-columbia-4533fd62e9dea3c7c858f46ac4bc7026">currently stalled</a> in the courts.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1269976722159566853"}"></div></p>
<h2>Global assent</h2>
<p>Part of the problem is that people around the world continue searching for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2">ethical frameworks</a> to manage the relationship between technology and society when we already have a successful model readily available to us: international human rights. It’s one one of the few global, ethical frameworks in existence that has overwhelming assent.</p>
<p>The other part of the problem is that we have mostly <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=3700267">assumed that rights in the analog world should apply online</a>. This means that territorial states are places of relevance and and enforcement. But Facebook’s infrastructure is global — it’s not a state. UN Special Rappoteurs are pointing out how the analogue and digital don’t always align in terms of <a href="https://undocs.org/A/HRC/37/62">privacy</a> and <a href="https://undocs.org/A/HRC/47/25">expression</a>, but this is just the beginning.</p>
<p>Anything that happens in the online world has a global impact, as we’ve seen with the European Union’s <a href="https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/04/24/the-eu-wants-to-become-the-worlds-super-regulator-in-ai">General Data Protection Regulation</a>. It’s clear that the impetus for protecting human rights is critical, no matter who is potentially violating them. But how to go about designing human rights protections in the name of autonomy, dignity, equality and community is not currently being contemplated when it comes to our digital spaces.</p>
<p>We must acknowledge the global and everyday reach of Facebook’s infrastructure. We need to understand how Facebook, and other tech companies like it, are dramatically shaping our experiences in ways that are both visible and invisible. </p>
<p>Understanding Facebook as a form of public infrastructure simply means acknowledging that it provides us with something essential: services that enable other services and activities, services we cannot get in the same way elsewhere. </p>
<p>Some have suggested that we <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/facebook-authoritarian-hostile-foreign-power/620168/">treat Facebook as a hostile country</a> to properly contain it. This seems unnecessary. Facebook is an example of a new type of global infrastructure that needs to protect and respect human rights.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169811/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This research is supported by the Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society at the University of Toronto.</span></em></p>In order to effectively regulate data-intensive, privately held global infrastructure like Facebook, human rights needs to be a primary focal point.Wendy H. Wong, Professor of Political Science and Canada Research Chair in Global Governance and Civil Society, University of TorontoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1603952021-05-06T09:29:28Z2021-05-06T09:29:28ZTrump’s Facebook ban upheld – but the future of the oversight board is in doubt<p>Referred to by some as Facebook’s “<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/01/facebooks-supreme-court-struggles-to-set-global-free-speech-rules-478851">supreme court</a>”, the <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/">oversight board</a> tasked with reversing or upholding Facebook’s content moderation decisions has ruled that the social media company’s ban of Donald Trump should be maintained.</p>
<p>The board <a href="https://oversightboard.com/decision/FB-691QAMHJ/">upheld</a> Facebook’s January 7 decision to <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/07/tech/facebook-trump-restrictions/index.html">ban then-President Trump</a> from posting content on Facebook and Instagram, after his social media activity was partially blamed for inciting the violence at the January 6 Capitol riots, during which <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/08/capitol-attack-police-officer-five-deaths">five people died</a>. However, the board noted that indefinite suspensions were not described in Facebook’s content policies – and so the ban will be reviewed again in six months.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1389928311174750211"}"></div></p>
<p>This outcome is hardly surprising. Leading legal scholars had advocated not to reinstate Trump, whose <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/facebook-suspended-trump-oversight-board-shouldnt-let-him-back">words carry significant weight</a> and whose apparent support for rioters violated Facebook’s <a href="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/violence_criminal_behavior">community standards</a>.</p>
<p>But the decision is also controversial. Those <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/05/05/trump-republicans-vow-facebook-will-pay-a-price-for-upholding-his-ban/">loyal to Trump</a> may see the decision as partisan, or else as a dangerous precedent for censoring speech on the internet. Others have argued that banning Trump reveals a <a href="https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-01-15/facebook-social-media-bans-trump-capitol-riot">double standard</a> – with other sitting and former leaders around the world avoiding a ban despite also being culpable for inciting violence. The oversight board must focus on building a reputation for consistency if it’s to be taken seriously as an independent regulator of online speech.</p>
<h2>Controversial board</h2>
<p>The oversight board is one of the most <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/01/facebooks-supreme-court-struggles-to-set-global-free-speech-rules-478851">controversial and significant</a> bodies ever developed to moderate content on the internet. Created in 2019, it is the “<a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2021/01/referring-trump-suspension-to-oversight-board/">first body of its kind in the world</a>” – an expert-led, independent organisation with the power to impose binding decisions on Facebook and to overrule the company’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg. </p>
<p>The origins of the board lie in the idea of law professor Noah Feldman that Facebook “<a href="https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/inside-the-making-of-facebooks-supreme-court">needed its own supreme court</a>” given the volume and importance of speech that the platform hosts. So did it get one?</p>
<p>The board has about 20 members, made up of experts and civic leaders, who have been <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2019/09/oversight-board-membership/">through special training</a>. Unlike many international courts, it is balanced in regional, gender and racial terms. It’s funded through a US$130 million (£93.7 million) trust from Facebook. In 2020, Facebook unveiled the board’s <a href="https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Bylaws_v6.pdf">bylaws</a> and <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2020/05/welcoming-the-oversight-board/">announced</a> its members and their <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/news/719406882003532-announcing-the-oversight-board-s-first-cases-and-appointment-of-trustees/">first cases</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1389239462807293953"}"></div></p>
<p>A case is referred to the board either by Facebook itself or through direct submissions from users who disagree with Facebook taking down their content or leaving someone else’s content up. Facebook has agreed <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2021/01/responding-to-the-oversight-boards-first-decisions/">to respect and act on the board’s decisions</a> unless it would be unlawful to do so.</p>
<h2>Does it work?</h2>
<p>Legal scholars and experts are wary about judging the board in its early stages of development. Some argue that the first set of decisions from the board have showed a decidedly “<a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/facebook-suspended-trump-oversight-board-shouldnt-let-him-back">libertarian tilt</a>”, mainly overturning decisions to take down posts about misinformation. The board has arguably appeared more concerned with the risks of excluding rather than including speech from public discussions.</p>
<p>But the limited nature of the board’s binding authority has been <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/oversight-board-moment-you-shouldve-been-waiting-facebook-responds-first-set-decisions">criticised</a>. And experts argue that the current model arguably gives Facebook significant power to determine which cases go before the board in the first place.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="The oversight board's logo behind a phone screen with the Facebook icon" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/399021/original/file-20210505-21-1glzl32.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/399021/original/file-20210505-21-1glzl32.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/399021/original/file-20210505-21-1glzl32.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/399021/original/file-20210505-21-1glzl32.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/399021/original/file-20210505-21-1glzl32.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/399021/original/file-20210505-21-1glzl32.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/399021/original/file-20210505-21-1glzl32.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The oversight board is a significant – if controversial – step towards effectively moderating social media content.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/oversight-board-logo-on-blurred-background-1967934466">mundissima/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Others are more hopeful. Legal expert Kate Klonick has eloquently argued, as part of a <a href="https://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/the-facebook-oversight-board">high-profile study of its development</a>, that the board has great potential to <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/inside-the-making-of-facebooks-supreme-court">set new precedents</a> for user participation in the governance of private platforms. It’s this wider impact of the board’s decisions, with the potential to guide <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/nod-donald-trump-florida-set-ban-big-tech-deplatforming-rcna784">state policymakers</a> and the moderation guidelines of other social media companies, that make its rulings so consequential in the wider field of internet law.</p>
<p>This is also what makes the board so controversial, raising concerns about censorship and whether Facebook holds unaccountable corporate power over free speech. In the US, opinions about Trump’s social media ban are <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/27/republicans-democrats-at-odds-over-social-media-companies-banning-trump/">split along partisan lines</a>, showing that the board’s decisions are rarely going to satisfy everyone.</p>
<h2>Trump still online</h2>
<p>In any case, in advance of the board’s decision, Trump announced he had developed a new “<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56989500">communications platform</a>” to share his press releases. It remains to be seen whether the ability of users to share content from this new platform onto Facebook will render the board’s decision moot. Trump’s rival “<a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-is-building-a-social-media-platform-but-keeping-it-online-will-be-a-challenge-157712">social media platform</a>”, announced in March 2021, is yet to appear online. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-is-building-a-social-media-platform-but-keeping-it-online-will-be-a-challenge-157712">Trump is building a social media platform – but keeping it online will be a challenge</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Facebook’s oversight board has the potential to become one of the best-funded and most interesting international court-like bodies in the world. Its success in achieving consistent decisions and nudging other platforms to self-regulate remains to be seen – but, until November 5 2021, its decision to keep Trump off Facebook and Instagram is binding.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160395/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Prof. Elaine Fahey receives funding from Erasmus+ Jean Monnet programme as the Jean Monnet Chair in Law & Transatlantic Relations, City Law School, 2019-2022. </span></em></p>Trump will not be returning to Facebook or Instagram before November 2021.Elaine Fahey, Professor of Law and Jean Monnet Chair of Law & Transatlantic Relations, City Law School, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1603492021-05-05T21:08:00Z2021-05-05T21:08:00ZWhy Facebook created its own ‘supreme court’ for judging content – 6 questions answered<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/399024/original/file-20210505-19-gg5zpf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=94%2C110%2C5184%2C3403&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Facebook's new Oversight Board affirmed the social media network's ban on Donald Trump.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/FacebookOversightPanel/eb4ce13be55d4a0b82cb1607f0a2d5f0/photo?Query=Facebook%20oversight%20board&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=14&currentItemNo=5">AP Photo/Jeff Chiu</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Facebook’s quasi-independent Oversight Board on May 5, 2021, <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/news/226612455899839-oversight-board-upholds-former-president-trump-s-suspension-finds-facebook-failed-to-impose-proper-penalty/">upheld the company’s suspension of former President Donald Trump</a> from the platform and Instagram. The decision came four months after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/05/03/facebook-trump-decision-faq">banned Trump “indefinitely” for his role</a> in inciting the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. The board chastised Facebook for failing to either set an end date for the suspension or permanently ban Trump and gave the social media company six months to resolve the matter.</em> </p>
<p><em>What is this Oversight Board that made one of the most politically perilous decisions Facebook has ever faced? Why did the company create it, and is it a good idea? We asked <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=loPMxzAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Siri Terjesen</a>, an expert on corporate governance, to answer these and several other questions.</em> </p>
<h2>1. What is the Facebook Oversight Board?</h2>
<p>The Oversight Board was set up to give users an independent third party to whom they can appeal Facebook moderation decisions, as well as to help set the policies that govern these decisions. The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/05/03/facebook-trump-decision-faq/">idea was first proposed</a> by Zuckerberg in 2018 after a discussion with Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, and the board began work in October 2020, funded by a US$130 million trust provided by Facebook to cover the initial six years of operating expenses.</p>
<p><a href="https://oversightboard.com">According to the board</a>, it “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.” The Oversight Board has final decision-making authority, even above the board of directors, and its decisions are binding on Facebook. </p>
<p>The Oversight Board has <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/meet-the-board/">20 members</a> from around the world and a diverse variety of disciplines and backgrounds, such as journalism, human rights and law, as well as different political perspectives. It even includes a former prime minister. The goal is to eventually expand the board to 40 members in total. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="former President Donald Trump raises his right arm as his hand forms a fist during a speech, with a row of US flags behind him" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/399043/original/file-20210505-17-f0ioku.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/399043/original/file-20210505-17-f0ioku.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/399043/original/file-20210505-17-f0ioku.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/399043/original/file-20210505-17-f0ioku.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/399043/original/file-20210505-17-f0ioku.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/399043/original/file-20210505-17-f0ioku.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/399043/original/file-20210505-17-f0ioku.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In a statement, Trump called the Oversight Board decision a ‘total disgrace.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/FacebookTrumpExplainer/789bc4439a9f4f9d8c736ff17901e404/photo?Query=facebook&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=9368&currentItemNo=1">AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. What other decisions has it made?</h2>
<p>So far, <a href="https://oversightboard.com/decision/">the board has reviewed 10 Facebook decisions</a>, including the one involving Trump. The decisions involved a variety of types of content, such as posts that were removed because they were deemed <a href="https://oversightboard.com/decision/FB-S6NRTDAJ/">racist</a>, <a href="https://oversightboard.com/decision/IG-7THR3SI1/">indecent</a> or <a href="https://oversightboard.com/decision/FB-R9K87402/">intended to incite violence</a>. It overturned Facebook’s ruling in six of the cases and upheld it in three of them. In the 10th case, the user deleted the post that Facebook had removed, which ended the board’s review. </p>
<p>In cases where the board overruled Facebook, the posts that had been removed were reinstated. And the board sometimes urged the company to clarify or revise its guidelines.</p>
<p>Given that Facebook is expected to take <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2021/02/17/the-facebook-oversight-board/">20 to 30 billion enforcement actions</a> in 2021 alone, it’s unlikely the Oversight Board will be able to handle more than a handful of the most high-profile cases, like that of Trump. It’s one of the reasons the Oversight Board is dubbed “<a href="https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/inside-the-making-of-facebooks-supreme-court">Facebook’s Supreme Court</a>.”</p>
<h2>3. Is it a model other social media companies are likely to follow?</h2>
<p>As a platform company, Facebook is unique.</p>
<p>It’s a social media giant that must monitor a global operation that <a href="https://investor.fb.com/financials/?section=annualreports">generates over $86 billion in revenue</a>, <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/273563/number-of-facebook-employees">employs 58,600 people</a> and serves <a href="https://www.oberlo.com/blog/facebook-statistics">more than 2.8 billion active monthly users</a> – more than a third of the world’s population – as well as millions of advertisers. Very few companies operate in a space that involves user content moderation, and none at this scale. Other platform companies have considerably less content, and usually only in one language, whereas Facebook is available in <a href="https://investor.fb.com/financials/?section=annualreports">100 languages</a>. </p>
<p>Given Facebook’s shareholder-elected corporate board of directors includes just 10 people, each of whom has their own demanding day job, it is not surprising to me that Zuckerberg decided to set up an outside panel to develop decisions about speech and online safety. </p>
<p>It’s unlikely, however, that other companies will ever have a similar type of board. The Oversight Board has been extremely resource intensive. It <a href="https://oversightboard.com">took over two years to establish</a> through a series of 22 roundtable meetings with participants in 88 countries, six in-depth workshops, 250 one-on-one discussions and 1,200 submissions – not to mention its high cost of $130 million, which is meant to last six years.</p>
<h2>4. Was it a good idea, from a corporate governance standpoint?</h2>
<p>A growing body of research <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1120957">questions whether directors on corporate boards can fulfill their oversight responsibilities</a> on their own, due to the sheer amount of information that must be obtained, processed and shared. </p>
<p>While I think we will see more corporate boards outsource some decisions and processes to external panels – as a small board cannot be expected to have the requisite knowledge and skills on all topics – few corporations are likely to follow Facebook’s lead and grant an outside body the power to make unilateral decisions. </p>
<p>Since only the board of directors is beholden to a company’s shareholders, board directors ultimately need to take the final responsibility for corporate decisions. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg looks to his right during a hearing on Capitol Hill in 2019" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/399044/original/file-20210505-23-1ajwvt5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/399044/original/file-20210505-23-1ajwvt5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/399044/original/file-20210505-23-1ajwvt5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/399044/original/file-20210505-23-1ajwvt5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/399044/original/file-20210505-23-1ajwvt5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/399044/original/file-20210505-23-1ajwvt5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/399044/original/file-20210505-23-1ajwvt5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Zuckerberg may still face political blowback because of the Oversight Board’s decision.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/FacebookOversightPanel/acf2cd51a2fc4dcfab8cff7ab466f749/photo?Query=Facebook%20oversight%20board&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=14&currentItemNo=13">AP Photo/Andrew Harnik</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>5. Does the Oversight Board shield Facebook from political or legal fallout?</h2>
<p>While it’s likely that some at Facebook hoped shifting its thorniest decisions would insulate the company, executives and corporate board members from political or legal problems, as the Trump decision shows, it won’t actually do that. </p>
<p>Certainly the decision to utilize an outside oversight body might be interpreted as political, as all 10 Facebook board directors <a href="https://investor.fb.com/leadership-and-governance/?section=board">live and work</a> predominantly in the United States and might be hesitant to vote to make decisions like restricting the freedom of expression of a former president who <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-04-27/president-trump-losing-support-from-republicans-poll-finds">still commands support among many Americans</a> – and <a href="https://www.cfr.org/blog/2020-election-numbers">won 47% of the popular vote</a> in the last election. </p>
<p>But whether Facebook makes the decision itself or outsources to an independent board, Facebook will still face the consequences if the decision to uphold the Trump ban alienates Americans or people around the world who feel it is an attack on their freedom of expression. </p>
<p>People may leave Facebook for other platforms such as <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/09/parler-jumps-to-no-1-on-app-store-after-facebook-and-twitter-bans/">Parler</a>, <a href="https://reason.com/2018/10/29/ready-to-get-off-facebook-reason-reviews/">Gab</a> and <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/7/22218989/signal-new-signups-whatsapp-facebook-privacy-controversy-elon-musk">Signal</a>, as <a href="https://fortune.com/2021/01/11/mewe-gab-rumble-growth-parler-trump-bans-social-media-violence/">many have already done</a> since the initial Trump ban in January – and knowing an outside body made the decision won’t stop them. </p>
<p>And a poor “political” decision <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-decision-on-trump-looms-facebook-preps-its-advertisers-11620151529">could drive away some advertisers</a> and make it harder to hire and retain employees, regardless of who made it.</p>
<h2>6. How are other social media companies handling these issues differently?</h2>
<p>Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey made an internal decision to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/twitter-permanently-bans-president-donald-trump-n1253588">permanently suspended Trump</a> from his company’s platform on Jan. 8, 2021. While Dorsey acknowledged that the decision <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-defends-trump-ban-but-admits-his-companys-power-sets-a-dangerous-precedent">set a “dangerous precedent</a>,” Twitter, like other social media companies, doesn’t have an appeals process for that kind of decision. </p>
<p>Some newer companies, such as <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/20/mewe-social-network-gains-members-touts-privacy-over-facebook/4228797001/">MeWe</a> and <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/youtube-rival-rumble-growth-ceo">Rumble</a>, offer more lax content moderation in order to allow greater freedom of expression for users.</p>
<p><a href="https://gab.com/">Gab</a> describes itself as “A social network that champions free speech, individual liberty and the free flow of information online. All are welcome.” <a href="https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.pdf">Parler’s content guidelines</a> are even more basic and keeps content moderation to an “absolute minimum. We prefer to leave decisions about what is seen and who is heard to each individual.” </p>
<p><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/gab-reports-growth-in-the-midst-of-twitter-bans-2021-1">Gab</a> and <a href="https://qz.com/1982895/parler-needs-apple-so-much-its-actually-moderating-more-content/,">Parler</a> are presently banned from the app stores of both Apple and Google due to a lack of content moderation.</p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160349/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Siri Terjesen has received research and review funding from U.S., Norwegian, and Swedish governments, as well as several private foundations.</span></em></p>The social media giant’s third-party review panel upheld Facebook’s ban on Donald Trump. A corporate governance expert explains why Facebook created the Oversight Board.Siri Terjesen, Phil Smith Professor of Entrepreneurship & Associate Dean, Research & External Relations, Florida Atlantic UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1561892021-03-18T15:09:11Z2021-03-18T15:09:11ZFacebook is stepping in where governments won’t on free expression<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389205/original/file-20210312-23-c91m18.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4479%2C2916&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Facebook's Oversight Board recently upheld a decision to remove posts using ethnic slurs against Azerbaijanis. Here Azerbaijani troops march during a military parade in Baku in December 2020 in celebration of a peace deal with Armenia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source"> (AP Photo)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We’ve known for quite some time that Facebook has a huge say over how online speech and expression are governed. Users have <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/facebook-responds-global-coalitions-demand-users-get-say-content-removal-decisions">demanded accountability</a>, and as a result the company created the <a href="https://oversightboard.com/">Facebook Oversight Board</a> to review and provide transparency about its content moderation decisions.</p>
<p>More recently, it also <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/161419/facebook-australia-ban-international-mafia">tried to suppress</a> Australian news in response to proposed legislation that would charge internet companies for distributing news content, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/19/facebook-news-australia-google-470323">prompting outrage</a> a call to #deletefacebook. <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-23/facebook-to-restore-news-pages-in-australia-in-coming-days">Facebook ultimately backed down.</a></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A collection of newspaper front pages about Facebook's Australia showdown." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389053/original/file-20210311-18-1if84mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389053/original/file-20210311-18-1if84mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389053/original/file-20210311-18-1if84mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389053/original/file-20210311-18-1if84mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389053/original/file-20210311-18-1if84mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389053/original/file-20210311-18-1if84mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389053/original/file-20210311-18-1if84mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Front pages of Australian newspapers are displayed in Sydney on Feb. 19, 2021, after Facebook blocked Australians from sharing news stories, escalating a fight with the government over whether powerful tech companies should have to pay news organizations for content.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The creation of the Oversight Board is a clear indication that Facebook sees itself as a global governor of <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/4/2/17185052/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-interview-fake-news-bots-cambridge">freedom of expression online</a>. This goes to the heart of how governance is changing as a result of technological progress. Although Facebook’s Oversight Board appears to be a step towards more accountable decision-making, it also highlights the failure of governments to address freedom of expression in online content.</p>
<p>Media platforms constantly make judgments about appropriate speech, and Facebook’s global reach of <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/">2.8 billion monthly users</a> gives the board tremendous global influence. </p>
<h2>Protecting human rights</h2>
<p>The Oversight Board is to use “its independent judgment to support people’s right to free expression and ensure those rights are being adequately respected.” The explicit reference to human rights in <a href="https://oversightboard.com/governance/">its charter</a> acknowledges that companies have a role in protecting and enforcing human rights. </p>
<p>This is consistent with efforts by the <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf">United Nations</a> <a href="https://www.hrw.org/topic/business">and other</a> <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/corporate-accountability/">advocacy efforts</a> to <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/business/pages/businessindex.aspx">create standards</a> on how businesses should be held accountable for human rights abuses. In light of Facebook’s entanglement <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/technology/on-facebook-misinformation-is-more-popular-now-than-in-2016.html">in misinformation</a>, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/06/22/881826881/facebook-groups-are-destroying-america-researcher-on-misinformation-spread-onlin">scandals</a> and <a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/03/facebook-haunted-by-its-handling-of-2016-election-meddling.html">election falsehoods</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html">as well as genocide</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebook.html">incitement of violence</a>, it seems particularly pertinent for the company.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/unliked-how-facebook-is-playing-a-part-in-the-rohingya-genocide-89523">Unliked: How Facebook is playing a part in the Rohingya genocide</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It’s not a stretch to say that Facebook seeks to become a governor of human rights. The decisions made by Facebook through its content moderators and Oversight Board have significant implications for the exercise of worldwide freedom of expression and speech. Their decisions articulate principles of what is acceptable expression that far exceed the reach of any single state in the world. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389063/original/file-20210311-15-g7arr2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Mark Zuckerberg appears on a screen" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389063/original/file-20210311-15-g7arr2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389063/original/file-20210311-15-g7arr2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389063/original/file-20210311-15-g7arr2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389063/original/file-20210311-15-g7arr2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389063/original/file-20210311-15-g7arr2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389063/original/file-20210311-15-g7arr2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389063/original/file-20210311-15-g7arr2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears on a screen as he speaks remotely during a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee on Capitol Hill in October 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Michael Reynolds/Pool via AP)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To date, we have assigned such decision-making powers to states, many of which are accountable to their citizens. Facebook, on the other hand, is unaccountable to citizens in nations around the world, and a single individual (Mark Zuckerberg) holds <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/082216/top-9-shareholders-facebook-fb.asp">majority decision-making power</a> at the company.</p>
<h2>Transparency emphasized</h2>
<p>Facebook took the step to create the Oversight Board after Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, <a href="https://today.law.harvard.edu/harvard-law-professor-plays-instrumental-role-in-creation-of-facebooks-content-oversight-board/">suggested the idea</a> in 2018. In the board’s first set of decisions, it <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/facebook-oversight-boards-first-decisions-ambitious-and-perhaps-impractical">emphasized the need for transparency</a> about Facebook removals. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389065/original/file-20210311-16-1yz1ux1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Noah Feldman speaks at a hearing." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389065/original/file-20210311-16-1yz1ux1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389065/original/file-20210311-16-1yz1ux1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389065/original/file-20210311-16-1yz1ux1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389065/original/file-20210311-16-1yz1ux1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389065/original/file-20210311-16-1yz1ux1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389065/original/file-20210311-16-1yz1ux1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389065/original/file-20210311-16-1yz1ux1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Noah Feldman testifies during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on the constitutional grounds for the first impeachment of Donald Trump in December 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Oversight Board will soon be deciding on the decision to remove former U.S. president Donald Trump from Facebook, a <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-oversight-board-trump-ban/">pivotal case</a>. Its first set of decisions weren’t nearly as high profile, but made apparent the internal procedures Facebook uses to make its content decisions. </p>
<p>To date, there have been <a href="https://oversightboard.com/decision/">seven decisions</a>. One removal that the Oversight Board overturned concerned the <a href="https://oversightboard.com/decision/IG-7THR3SI1/">exposure of female nipples</a> in a breast cancer awareness campaign on Instagram. This case highlighted the importance of human moderation, as the post had been removed by an algorithm (Facebook restored it when the Oversight Board selected the case to review). </p>
<p>In other cases, human moderators have had their decisions overturned. The Oversight Board also upheld Facebook’s decision <a href="https://oversightboard.com/decision/FB-QBJDASCV/">to remove a dehumanizing ethnic slur against Azerbaijanis</a> in the context of an active conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh disputed region.</p>
<p>However, the Oversight Board deals with only a small fraction of possible cases. Whether the board was created to enhance transparency and human rights or to heavily influence meaningful government intervention and regulation, it’s clear that private organizations are currently the only consistent governors of data and social media. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="The TikTok logo." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390174/original/file-20210317-23-1c8q91c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390174/original/file-20210317-23-1c8q91c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390174/original/file-20210317-23-1c8q91c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390174/original/file-20210317-23-1c8q91c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390174/original/file-20210317-23-1c8q91c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390174/original/file-20210317-23-1c8q91c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390174/original/file-20210317-23-1c8q91c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">TikTok could also play a role in global freedom of expression.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Kiichiro Sato)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Few entities can influence freedom of expression <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/268136/top-15-countries-based-on-number-of-facebook-users/">at the global level</a> as pervasively as Facebook. Twitter is another candidate, although with <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/303681/twitter-users-worldwide/">330 million monthly users</a>, its influence pales in comparison. TikTok might be a bigger contender, projected to reach <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/10/new-forecast-pegs-tiktok-to-top-1-2b-monthly-active-users-in-2021/">1.2 billion monthly</a> users this year, and WeChat has <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/255778/number-of-active-wechat-messenger-accounts/">similar numbers</a>. Taken together, it’s clear that while Facebook is the largest social media platform, these companies play an enormous role in online freedom of expression and speech.</p>
<h2>Governments must step up</h2>
<p>But Facebook and other social media companies do not have to engage in a transparent, publicly accountable process to make their decisions. However, Facebook claims that in its decision-making, it upholds the human right of freedom of expression. However, freedom of expression <a href="https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/facebooks-supreme-court">does not mean the same thing</a> to everyone. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/why-free-speech-needs-a-new-definition-in-the-age-of-the-internet-and-trump-tweets-152919">Freedom of speech</a> often involves sifting out bad ideas from good. It is about protecting the right to say what you think, even when it’s a minority opinion. Maintaining the balance of harm versus freedom has always been tricky. </p>
<p>Facebook’s dominance in social media, however, is notable not because it’s a private company. Mass communication has been privatized, at least in the U.S., for <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/first-amendment-regulation/617827/">a long time</a>. Rather, Facebook’s insertion into the regulation of freedom of expression and its claim to support human rights is notable because these have traditionally been the territory of governments. While far from perfect, <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/mobilizing-for-human-rights/4922EA5EB91DE8224C456C81D2599AB3">democracies provide citizens</a> and other groups influence over the enforcement of human rights. </p>
<p>Facebook and other social media companies, however, have no such accountability to the public. Ensuring human rights needs to go beyond volunteerism by private companies. Perhaps with the Australia versus Facebook showdown, governments finally have an impetus to pay attention to the effects of technology companies on fundamental human rights.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156189/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This research is supported by the Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society at the University of Toronto.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicholas Weller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The decisions made by Facebook through its content moderators and Oversight Board have significant implications for the exercise of worldwide freedom of expression and speech.Wendy H. Wong, Professor of Political Science and Canada Research Chair in Global Governance and Civil Society, University of TorontoNicholas Weller, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of California, RiversideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.