Skip to main content

Mark Zuckerberg Says the Supreme Court of Facebook Is Coming Soon

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced Thursday that the social media giant is creating an “Independent Content Council” that will be empowered to make binding decisions about whether accounts are banned from the platform. The decision comes weeks after Facebook banned a number of far-right and extremists on the platform, including Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, and Louis Farrakhan.

The content council will be the long-awaited “Supreme Court” of Facebook that Zuckerberg first mentioned last year. If someone is banned from Facebook and decides to appeal the decision, it may eventually make its way to the content council, which will ultimately decide whether the account or posted content can stay on the platform.

“We know that our systems can feel opaque, and people should have a way to hold us accountable and make sure that we’re enforcing our standards fairly,” Zuckerberg said on a conference call with reporters. “This independent oversight board will look at some of our hardest casts and the decisions it makes will be binding. That means that even if our teams, or even if I disagree with its decisions, we won’t be able to overturn them.”

Zuckerberg did not give a timeline for when the council will be rolled out or who will be on it, but the idea, first floated last year, has been controversial: some experts see it as a way for Facebook to distance itself from the often politically difficult decisions it has to make about banning content. For example, if the content council decided that InfoWars’s Alex Jones could stay on the platform, Facebook can say that an independent council made the decision; if it decided to ban him, Facebook can say to conservatives that, well, an independent council made the decision.

More concerningly, Facebook hasn’t given any details about how the council will work, who will be on it, what set of rules it’ll be working under, and how decisions will ultimately filter up to it.

“Currently his conception of the independent body is more soundbite than substance,” Evelyn Douek of Harvard Law School wrote for Lawfare. “Zuckerberg’s blog post literally asks more questions about the anticipated tribunal than it answers.”

1558635942812-Screen-Shot-2019-05-23-at-14937-PM

Thursday, Facebook released an update on its content moderation practices, which included a new section for appeal results. According to Facebook's data, millions of pieces of content are restored upon repeal. It stands to reason, then, that the independent content council will be used only in high profile or high stakes circumstances.



from VICE http://bit.ly/30Hm0nN

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

REPORT: Furious Spike Lee Paces Aisle, Turns Back To Stage...

REPORT: Furious Spike Lee Paces Aisle, Turns Back To Stage... (Top headline, 5th story, link ) Related stories: REVIEW: Hostless Show Starts With Rock & Rolls Off Rails... Actor knocks borders, walls during speech in Spanish... Stage designed to look like Trump hair? 'GREEN BOOK' OVERCOMES BACKLASH, NABS BEST PICTURE... Top Critics Fume... LIST: WINNERS... Advertise here from Drudge Report Feed https://ift.tt/2SUpIKy

Tiny Love Stories: ‘Who Was I to Deprive Him of Joy?’

By Unknown Author from NYT Style https://ift.tt/2UV7YAG

The Ugly History of Dual-Loyalty Charges

When Representative Ilhan Omar recently complained about “the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” many noted accurately that she had deployed a trope—dual loyalty—that had been used against Jews for years. But this accusation has a broader history in the United States, having been used against several religious minorities—including Muslims like Omar. Indeed, many battles over religious freedom have revolved around dual-loyalty claims. [ Read: Ilhan Omar just made it harder to have a nuanced debate about Israel ] In the 19th century, many attacks on Catholics stressed that these immigrants were pawns of a foreign power. In the 1830s, Samuel Morse—then a prominent painter and later the inventor of the telegraph—urged Americans to build “walls” and “gates” to keep out Catholic immigrants, who would always be loyal to Rome. Because these Catholic immigrants were decrepit —“halt, and blind, and naked”—they were easy to co...