Facebook released the names of the chairs and members of the first iteration of the Supreme Court of Facebook (actually named the Oversight Board) last week. The idea is fascinating shift for a company and an industry not especially known for judicious thought and action – typified by “move fast and break things” (the law prefers to move slow and alter little) and Facebook’s address of 1 Hacker Way (the only way is to hack, and hackers are known for being… not exactly law abiding). In fairness, Facebook has embraced the speed of the legal process; by my count it has only taken nineteen months[1] to create the Oversight Board.
The Oversight Board follows naturally from Zuckerberg’s own opinion that open debate and freedom of expression should be strongly favored over moderation. This is both a typically American sentiment and benefits Facebook. As a profit driven corporation traded on the stock market the ultimate goal of Facebook is to make money; it does so by keeping people on the site and serving them ads. People are more likely to stay on a site that doesn’t take their content down, they also are more likely to engage (positively and negatively) with fringe content that pushes the boundaries of free expression.
Let us not forget, the reason the Oversight Board exists is because Facebook is feeling the squeeze of public opinion, NOT pressure or threat of violating the law. Despite heavy gusts of hot air from politicians suggesting the contrary (high wind warning, NOAA recommends you stay indoors and be aware of falling tree branches), Facebook’s content moderation decisions are protected by Section 230 of the CDA, shielding the service from liability for objectionable content placed on the service by the users and content moderation done in good faith. Therefore, Facebook can and does choose to remove all sorts of content, from terrorist acts to child porn, and provides notice to citizens of Facebook through its Community Standards.[2] At a service of Facebook’s scale content is famously difficult to moderate, spawning a rulebook hundreds of pages long and a job difficult enough to give many contractors PTSD.[3] Many of these decisions reside in a gray area (does the nipple of a breastfeeding mother violate the standard banning nudity?)[4], and violators previously had little ability to object the moderation decisions.
This is what the Oversight Board is designed to do – be the final arbiter of complicated content moderation decisions. This takes a bit of the shine off of S.Ct. Fb., right? As a reminder, Facebook has a dual stock structure which ensures Mark Zuckerberg retains full control of the company, regardless of the opinions of shareholders or board of directors’ opinions. The Oversight Board doesn’t alter the balance of power within the company but provides a place for prolonged debate of the grayest areas of the Community Standards. I’m not saying the Oversight Board is a bad thing, I actually agree it is a good idea for the company to be more open and transparent about what is allowed on its service and how it reaches those decisions. However, if you’re unhappy with the way Facebook is running social media it does feel like a bit of a flat response, more designed to deflect criticism of the company than embrace it. We’ll probably hear a lot more about the board in the coming months – there is no doubt each step made by its members is a chance for Facebook PR to show us the company is now a judicious, thoughtful place.[5]
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/15/18097219/facebook-independent-oversight-supreme-court-content-moderation
[2] https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/
[3] https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona
[4] It does not. This has been a much-litigated issue within the company and the community standards now allow breastfeeding images. You can imagine other more nuanced and complicated content moderation problems.
[5] Speaking of, there slated to be forty – forty! – members of the Oversight Board. On a scale of Mark Zuckerberg to Congress, this definitely leans towards Congress, and I expect its decisions will be similarly quick, decisive, and coherent.
Dumb Privacy Guy 