Latest in Facebook Oversight Board
Facebook’s Oversight Board presents itself as an executor of the global public interest embedded in international law. But in reality, the board uses international law in an imaginative and incoherent fashion, often widely reinterpreting its principles and instruments.
Our analysis shows that Meta’s Oversight Board has missed more than 20 percent of its decision deadlines. Why should we care?
Twitter’s ban of Trump marked the defining moment of the Great Deplatforming. But all the attention surrounding the FOB decision has precipitated a dramatic reversal of fortune.
Today was the 30-day deadline for Facebook’s responses to the policy recommendations in the FOB’s decision on the suspension of Trump’s account. The responses are underwhelming.
Should a powerful technology company such as Facebook have the power to ban public officials from its platform?
On Jan. 7, the day after a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol building, Facebook temporarily banned then-President Donald Trump on the grounds that he had used a video and online statement to incite violence. Since then, the company referred the Trump case to an oversight board composed of 20 independent experts to determine whether to make the ban permanent and to provide guidance for other world leaders.
Comparing the Facebook Oversight Board to an international human rights tribunal reveals that the board’s ability to hold Facebook accountable will depend on its ability to develop human rights norms, incentivize Facebook to internalize those norms, and overcome challenges to building its authority and legitimacy.
What do the details of today's decision reveal about Facebook’s rules, and the FOB’s role in reviewing them?
Can Facebook’s independent overseers make an easy case hard?
Join us for a discussion of the Facebook Oversight Board's forthcoming ruling on Trump's ban.
The Facebook Oversight Board should be mindful that Facebook is not a government—and that the platform’s decisions denying active accounts or taking down posts pose no threat of loss of liberty to any person.