Facebook first announced such a possibility in November 2018 in a note posted to the platform by its CEO Mark Zuckerberg. In the face of conflicting characterizations and persistent controversy surrounding Facebook’s business activities, how do lawyers, particularly business lawyers, understand and evaluate Oversight Board’s novel construction, that claims to incorporate principles of the rule of law and international human rights into the core of its activities? The Structures of Oversight BoardĪs one of the world’s largest and most prominent social media platforms, Facebook has responded to increasing demand for the regulation of social media companies in a novel manner, by creating a separate private business entity to advise a narrow band of its content decisions. Most recently, placing board members on par with journalists, academics, and other members of civil society, the board characterized its work as a mere “part” of a “collective effort” to steer Facebook towards greater transparency. In stark contrast, Oversight Board uses more narrow terminology to describe itself, using little more than its own highly suggestive name and sharply defined contractual terms. Oversight Board has been referred to as “an elaborate structure for a supposedly independent body to review…content decisions” and “a group of own making.” It has also been called an “independent body,” an “independent panel,” and a “quasi-independent oversight board.” Some reports have gone so far as calling it Facebook’s “Supreme Court,” “a quasi-judicial organization,” or even an “international human rights tribunal.” These descriptions are neither fitting nor accurate. Press reports have referred to Facebook’s Oversight Board using a range of descriptors from the cynical to the ridiculous. This article is the third in a series on intersections between business law and the rule of law and their importance for business lawyers, created by the American Bar Association Business Law Section’s Rule of Law Working Group. Diversity and Inclusion in the Profession.Recent Developments in Business and Corporate Litigation.Short videos on M&A concepts, created by Hotshot and the M&A Committee. Business Regulation & Regulated Industries.Business Litigation & Dispute Resolution.“When you decide to take down someone’s entire account, and to ban their speech, you really deprive them of their right to association and their right to live their lives. “We hear so much about Donald Trump and about high-profile actors that have been censored by Facebook, but there are thousands of people whose accounts have been taken down and the board is their last source to get it back from Facebook. “The reason we’re talking about content moderation right now is that it’s started to happen to powerful people,” Klonick told the committee. Even if that takes many sessions with coders talking very slowly so that we understand them, I think we need to understand what these machines are.”Īppearing alongside Rusbridger was legal academic Kate Klonick, who shadowed the board as it was set up. “People say to me, ‘Oh, you’re on the board, but it’s well known that the algorithms reward emotional content that polarises communities because that makes it more addictive.’ Well I don’t know if that’s true or not, and as a board we’re going to have to get to grips with that. Because it is going to be a very difficult thing to understand how this artificial intelligence works,” Rusbridger said. “I think we need more technology people on the board who can give us independent advice from Facebook. Now the board is in the process of finding another 20 board members without Facebook’s direct involvement. Facebook selected the first 20 members, in conjunction with four co-chairs directly appointed by the social network. Whether we’ll understand when we see it is a different matter.”īefore the board would be able to examine the Facebook algorithm, Rusbridger suggested it would need to expand its numbers. At some point we’re going to ask to see the algorithm, I feel sure, whatever that means. But we have to get our feet under the table first, and prove that we can do what we want. “These are all things that the board may ask Facebook for in time. “What happens if you want to make something less viral? What happens if you want to put up an interstitial? What happens if, without commenting on any high-profile current cases, you didn’t want to ban someone for life but wanted to put them in a ‘sin bin’ so that if they misbehave again you can chuck them off? “We’re already a bit frustrated by just saying ‘take it down’ or ‘leave it up’,” Rusbridger told the House of Lords communications and digital committee on Tuesday.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |