![]() (Of course, it could issue its judgement sooner.) One of the four co-chairs of the 20-person board will assign the case to a panel, which typically consists of five people (one must be in the North American region), and they will consider whether, as a major political player, Trump will be welcomed back.” The process : Steven Levy explains in Wired how the oversight board will proceed in the Trump case: “Facebook had the option of asking the board to make an expedited decision for a quick turnaround, but considering the gravity of the case, it chose to allow the board to take its usual 90 days to process the case.If nothing else, the oversight board might provide some transparency. And it will also be worth watching the second thing that Facebook asked the board to consider : “any observations or recommendations around suspensions when the user is a political leader.” That is a contentious topic-since, as Jillian York, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has pointed out, Facebook has, in the past, banned generals from Myanmar and politicians from Turkey without saying much about why those decisions were made. Whether the board is designed to obscure and distract from Facebook’s general malevolence, or it’s a way of deflecting responsibility for particular decisions, it is nevertheless going to be interesting to see how the board handles the case of Trump. These and other limitations led some critics-including former Facebook investor Roger MacNamee and Rappler founder Maria Ressa- to create what they call The Real Oversight Board, to review the decisions made by the, er, real oversight board. Nor can it deal with cases related to Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp. But the granular details are less inspiring: for example, the board can hear cases about things that were taken down or blocked, but it can’t hear cases about posts that should have been removed. And the board’s charter makes it sound as though it will have significant power over what Facebook does. This particular village is very well appointed, in that the board is filled with respected academics, judges, and others with impeccable pedigrees, such as Alan Rusbridger, a former editor of the Guardian. Some critics of the oversight board view it as a kind of Potemkin village designed to distract people-including regulators-from the company’s monopoly on social networking, and how it controls speech. And the charter that established the board isn’t legally binding, which means that Facebook could choose to ignore its rulings, even if it looks bad. In his blog post about the Trump case, Clegg wrote that the board is “an independent body and its decisions are binding-they can’t be overruled by CEO Mark Zuckerberg or anyone else at Facebook.” Yet Facebook provides its funding. The oversight board is a controversial entity. (Some believe that what Facebook really wants is for the board to order that he be reinstated, since his presence drives engagement, and, in turn, revenue.) As outlined in the documents that govern the oversight board, Trump is entitled to argue that the ban on his account is unreasonable. Still, Clegg added, “Given its significance, we think it is important for the board to review it and reach an independent judgment on whether it should be upheld.” While the company waits for the board’s decision, Clegg said, Trump’s account will remain suspended. “We believe our decision was necessary and right,” wrote Nick Clegg, a former British deputy prime minister who is now Facebook’s vice-president of global communications. In announcing that the oversight board would review the decision, Facebook made clear that it aims to ban Trump permanently. “We are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.” ![]() “We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great,” Zuckerberg wrote. An initial ban had gone into effect on January 7, after a mob stormed the Capitol building. Whatever the outcomes, those cases have been overshadowed by an announcement on Thursday that Facebook has sought the right to permanently banish Donald Trump. More than three years after the idea was first floated by Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s “oversight board” started hearing its first cases last month.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |