There is a new oversight body that has been formed by Facebook. It’s a body that will hold Facebook accountable for their actions. It’s an experiment in the cutting edge of technology and the rule of law.
It’s an experiment at the cutting edge of technology and the rule of law
The Facebook Oversight Board, also known as the Facebook Supreme Court, is a recent addition to the social networking giant’s arsenal. Its purpose is to provide an oversight mechanism for enforcing the community standards and regulations governing its users’ interactions with the social network.
The new oversight board has been designed to address the shortcomings of the existing system, which has been criticized for its lack of transparency, responsiveness and ambiguity. In addition to the oversight board, Facebook is also instituting its own set of community standards to better protect users’ privacy, security and overall experience.
Despite these improvements, the company still falls short of the mark in several categories. One of the main issues is its lack of constitutional authority. While the Oversight Board is not yet a statutory entity, its pending arrival signals an imminent shift in the balance of power. For the time being, the board will only hear about a fraction of Facebook’s content, and will operate within a narrow scope.
It’s a body that can hold Facebook accountable
The Facebook Oversight Board is a relatively new organization. It is the first institutional effort to apply international standards of free speech to Facebook content. However, it is not a perfect model.
For the time being, the Oversight Board’s power to act on behalf of users is limited. To this end, it will only be able to make decisions on a small number of cases.
As such, it may not have the independence of professional judgment that other self-regulatory models enjoy. In addition, the board’s decision-making process is not based on external standards but on the company’s own internal rules.
This leaves little room for the Oversight Board to have an independent influence over Facebook. Moreover, the board’s recommendations are not binding. Even if Facebook were to change its policies, the Board is not required to do so.
Ultimately, the Oversight Board is a useful institution. While it can’t impose penalties on executives, it does offer some guidance. And it can even help Facebook regain public trust.
It’s a head-fake
Facebook has made a huge public show of its Oversight Board. It is a publicity stunt, and an attempt to mask the company’s lack of democratic scrutiny.
The board has been touted as a “new way of holding Facebook accountable.” Yet there is no evidence it will have the capacity to hold the company to account.
Moreover, the board is not legally binding. Facebook can decide whether controversial posts will remain up, or be taken down. While the board will have some power to make these decisions, the decision will be guided by Facebook’s business interests.
There are also concerns about Facebook’s self-interested influence on policy recommendations. Zuckerberg has proposed a global digital currency. This could be used to create a system of self-interested propaganda.
It’s hard to think of Facebook as a democracy, since it is evading government regulation and democratic scrutiny. But the Facebook Oversight Board may be a good tool to help hold the tech giant accountable.
It’s a platform that makes 2 million content moderation decisions
Facebook the verge is a platform that makes over 2 million content moderation decisions a day. These decisions are made by humans and artificial intelligence, and are intended to filter out harmful or illegal content. Mostly, these decisions are about self-harm, spam, sex, and drugs.
Earlier this year, there were two major investigations into the content moderation process at Facebook. One was done by Silicon Valley editor Casey Newton, and the other was conducted by The Verge. Both reports raised interesting questions about the company’s treatment of content moderators.
For starters, the moderators that Facebook employs are not full-time employees. They are contractors. While they work at the highest level, they receive very little support. Moreover, they often encounter graphic and violent content. In some cases, they may even be subjected to murders.
Conclusion
In response, Facebook agreed to pay $52 million in compensation to content moderators and provide more support for moderators who have mental health issues. It also promised to make changes to content moderation software.
