The thing is, while this may be technically true, I’m not sure it matters. The Oversight Board has no real power, so it doesn’t matter what they do. But, again, it’s perhaps too early to tell, and this will be a point worth watching.ģ. Indeed, the policy recommendations (not just the decisions directly on content moderation) suggest that the Board is taking its role as being an independent watchdog over how Facebook operates somewhat seriously. And the fact that this body is now pushing back on Facebook’s decisions suggests that there’s at least some initial evidence that the Board might force Zuckerberg to take more responsibility.
Facebook is basically the first and only site so far to hand off those decisions to a 3rd party - and it did so after a ton of people whined that Facebook had too much power. Every other company in the world that does content moderation has a final say on their decisions, because it’s their website. It’s kind of a no-win situation either way. The Oversight Board is just a way for Facebook and Zuckerberg not to take real responsibility Let’s see what happens over a longer time frame.Ģ. To me, at least, the first five decisions are not enough to make a judgment call on this point either way. However, people who believe this view retort that “well, of course the initial decisions have to do this to pretend to be independent.” Which… I guess? But seems like a lot of effort for no real purpose. This narrative is slightly contradicted by the fact that the Oversight Board overturned four decisions. The Oversight Board is just here to rubberstamp Facebook’s decisions and make it look like there’s some level of review. I’m certainly not a fan of many of the company’s practices, and don’t think that the Oversight Board is as important as some make it out to be, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth paying attention to.īut I tended to see a few different responses to the first rulings, which struck me as amusing, since the positions are simply not disprovable:ġ. It’s no secret that many people absolutely hate Facebook and view absolutely everything the company does as unquestionably evil. What’s more interesting to me, though, is how so many people are completely locked in to their original view of the board, and how insistent they are that the first decisions only confirm their position. I can understand the reasoning behind each of the five decisions, though I’m not sure I would have ruled the same way. And, as such, it is bound to make mistakes and adapt over time. I’ve said before that I think the Oversight Board is a worthwhile experiment, and one worth watching, but it is just one experiment. What I’m going to discuss, however, is how the decisions seem to have only reinforced… absolutely everyone’s opinions of the Oversight Board. If you want a more detailed and thoughtful analysis of the decisions and what this all means, I highly recommend Evelyn Douek’s detailed analysis of the key takeaways from the rulings. If you don’t want to wade into the details, NPR’s write-up of the decisions and policy recommendations is quite well done and easily digestible. Following the announcement, Facebook announced that (as it had promised) it followed all of the Oversight Board’s decisions and reinstated the content on the overturned cases (in one case, involving taking down a breast cancer ad that had been deemed to violate the “no nudity” policy, Facebook actually reinstated the content last year, after the Board announced it was reviewing that decision). It overturned four Facebook content moderation decisions and upheld one.
Last week, the Oversight Board - which is the official name that the former Facebook Oversight Board wants you to call it - announced decisions on the first five cases it has heard.
0 kommentar(er)
