In the past year or so, Facebook has been under constant fire for its privacy and content moderation issues. To reassure the public and fix these problems, Facebook has created plans for an “Oversight Board” that consists of “40 members with three-year terms drawn from a diverse array of backgrounds.” Panels of five members will deliberate issues regarding content moderation. The board, which is set to be put into effect in early 2020, would act as a “Supreme Court” and make decisions even Zuckerberg couldn’t overturn unless “implementing the finding would break the law.”
I think this is very interesting because I haven’t seen a private company try to create anything like this before. Do you think this will fix or improve security and content moderation issues? How will this “Oversight Board” interact with the national government or national policies? Do laws and policies on technology need to be improved? If the government doesn’t take action in this area, will that power fall to Facebook’s “Supreme Court?" How much authority will they actually have? Will trying to be stricter on what people can and cannot post clash with concepts in the Constitution like free speech? How do you think this conflict will play out?
I think that while this is at least a fresh idea and it's good to see that some company is attempting to take action, I don't have much faith in this particular solution. Apparently an average of over 350 million photos are added to Facebook per day. Even if only a tiny tiny percentage of that content is flagged, it would be way to much workload for a panel of any amount of people to manually consider. As it is now, Facebook hires millions of workers to check content before it is posted and pays these people horrifically low wages to do so. This process has been condemned, but this new solution of a tiny panel, while definitely better from a politically correct standpoint, doesn't seem practical. I suspect what's going to end up happening is that this panel will only judge really controversial cases and possibly come up with some changes to user agreements, but the most problematic content is not the posts that are the most extreme, but rather the stuff that individually is only slightly problematic, but which spreads like wildfire and reaches really big audiences. I think the solution to this still lies in better automated detection and removal of content.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, Facebook is a private company, and they have the right to censor or permit any content that they want. But they have to be aware that the effects of their "Supreme Court" decisions may reach far beyond Facebook. Other social media companies may follow in Facebook's lead not by creating their own "courts," but by adhering to Facebook's rulings on topics from hate speech to copyright. And even further, the government in the United States has a long history of taking cues from corporations. Legislation covering social media is a relatively new and untested area, and if Facebook is taking the lead then US policy may end up following. In a country where corporate interests already have too weighty of an influence, the potential of a corporate supreme court influencing public policy is all too real—and dangerous.
ReplyDeleteI think there needs to be more regulations on what can be posted on social media, but I don’t think this “Supreme Court” will fix security and content moderation issues very much because it is such a small group dealing with all the posts. However, the actual Supreme Court is only a group of nine justices who have many cases sent to them every year, so they look at these cases and decide which ones are the most important to hear because it will affect multiple states or the nation as a whole, which seems to be working to some degree. If Facebook’s new committee works the same way the Supreme Court does, by only choosing the most urgent issues to look at and design policies that address those, then it is possible that we could see some changes in the Facebook’s content. Other social media platforms will most likely follow Facebook’s track if this method works. Facebook’s “Supreme Court” would need to be careful though, and pay attention to existing laws, policies, and rights, because prohibiting too much content may violate parts of the First Amendment, and if that happened, the government would have the right to get involved.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite an interesting suggestion by facebook to better moderate content but i do not believe this is the solution. Although drawing the lines for moderation is important, the challenge lies in implementing it; bots were never allowed on facebook, but yet still posed a problem. hate speech was never allowed, yet white supremacists still hold accounts. The solution to the problem of bad information on facebook ultimately lies on better ways to address bad information, rather than determining what bad information is.
ReplyDeleteJunghaye
DeleteIn principle, this does sound like a good idea. There is a great deal of inconsistency and ideally, there should exist an independent body to regulate the content on Facebook. However, I would have to pull into question how these members are selected and therefore I would wonder how independent this Supreme Court really can be. It is also concerning that Mark Zuckerberg has any veto power, this means that this power could be abused. There is no check on the CEO. Therefore I believe that the Federal Government should crease some sort of guidelines as to what type of content is acceptable on social media and what is not. This could allow a truly independent body to make contnet moderation decisions.
ReplyDeleteFacebook is a private company, so whatever they decide to censor on their own platform is not against the freedom of speech. That being said, there is simply too much content for Facebook’s employees to be able to deal with effectively. The best solution for facebook is to develop an algorithm that can effectively decide if something should be flagged as hate speech, using keywords. The main issue with Facebook removing content is that people will accuse them of being politically biased. The main issue is that people don’t want to feel like their right to the freedom of speech is being violated.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a cool idea. It seems like a step in the right direction for media companies toward "fairness" and consistency in censoring decisions. I hope that when Zuckerberg says that the "justices" will be drawn from a majority of backgrounds he means not only ethnicity, religion, age, gender but also geographic location and political viewpoint. Traditionally, the tech companies of silicon valley take liberal perspectives. It would only be fair for the board to include members of more conservative persuasions.
ReplyDeleteJust like the US supreme court, the "supreme court" of Facebook's cases would set good precedent for what should and should not be censored in order to establish consistency. Not only would future cases for Facebook be handled in accordance with the decision, but its cases, if publicized, would likely be used as baselines for other media companies on what they should censor.
The only caution I would have is: if other media companies start using Facebook's decision as precedent, these 5 board members would have a great deal of power on what is and is not "allowed" on the internet. I should hope these board members are selected carefully and their decisions are viewed with a healthy skepticism.
I think the board is definitely a great idea, but it has to be handled well. Transparency will remain an issue regardless of whether the decision making is in the hands of the actual corporate leaders or this oversight board, and ultimately, it sounds like these people, despite their diverse backgrounds, could very easily be corrupt. All Zuckerberg would need to do is pay them to say something, and then when fingers are pointed at Facebook for another issue, he could pass blame on. Perhaps that's a little pessimistic, though. Taking a step back, this power isn't really any separate from Facebook. If the power to govern is taken from the consent of the governed, then the rulings of this court don't reach any farther than Facebook itself; it's not a legal body that has the power to influence how other corporations rule themselves, or what the federal government itself does, except maybe by leading by example. While good precedents may be set, this board could also serve to confuse the general public about what is and what is not official ruling. I would be wary of any sort of formation of a separate governing body by private companies, but I can't accurately judge until it actually forms and we can find out more about how it'll function and what it can do.
ReplyDeleteI believe this "Oversight Board" is an interesting idea. I think it has the potential to be very beneficial for Facebook. With the extreme fire that Facebook has been put under for privacy concerns, implementing a system like this could prevent future incidents. I think it is also very intelligent to have the members of this board replaced every 3 years. This will allow for a more diverse group of perspectives that can adjust with time. In comparison to the board's function to the US Supreme Court, I think both act quite similarly. From my understanding, the Facebook board's goal is to decifier the line on the intrusion of one's privacy. The US Supreme Court also works to interpret, in their case the law, in Facebook's case privacy, and both do this in direct accordance to another entity. For Facebook, this board could be working alongside Facebook engineers and developers who are looking to maximize their platform without overstepping their boundaries. The Oversight Board's job is to help with this. Additionally, the US Supreme Court works directly with Congress and the Executive Branch. Based on laws they pass, the Supreme Court works to interpret these laws are understand their constitutionality. Therefore, I see many parallels between the two groups.
ReplyDeleteI find this intriguing, largely because it feels like a grand act to convince the government and the public that Facebook is now taking security and content moderation more seriously. However, with 40 people specialized for the job, it appears to hold promise. I do not think this will interfere with the government at all and regarding free speech, Facebook can simply put a disclaimer or explanation in the terms and conditions of using the app. People usually skip through these, but Facebook is evidently making a spectacle of the new policy, so users should make it their responsibility and be aware of how their information is being saved or moderated on the apps they choose to use. However, Facebook should be aware that people largely look over the terms and conditions agreement and make a significant effort to inform the public of their new plans before it is fully implemented.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this form of authority is appropriate in the context that social media platform "Facebook" requires reforming and active monitoring in terms of what content is displayed. Even though this will prove to be relatively effective, it will most likely not diminish all of the content problems that Facebook encounters.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the Oversight Board ought to coordinate with the federal government accordingly, in order to address the more serious concerns such as cyber-security and data privacy. For the most part, there shouldn't be many other reasons to involve federal agencies in the midst of Facebook. On the other-hand, I do agree with the notion that policies regarding technology and aspects of the Internet ought to be actively monitored and regulated, as the Internet is an ever-so expanding entity that has boundless powers. As long as no serious concerns arise regarding public safety and privacy, the Oversight Board ought to effectively handle the issues of Facebook as a whole.
I believe that with the increasing ease of access to the internet, there are bound to be internet trolls who plan to spread false information especially on social media platforms such as Facebook that have a mass number of users daily. Thus, I find it relieving to see Facebook taking some action to monitor what content is being displayed on their platform. However, with the internet considered to be a platform for all people to express themselves freely, this could be seen as a form of censorship. I believe Facebook and other companies in the future need to take into account of this issue when finding a way to effectively approach what content is displayed on their platforms.
ReplyDeleteIn the bigger scheme of things, this sounds like a good idea. Facebook on its own is a private company and they are capable of having the right to censor or allow and sort of content that they want. Although, I don’t think that this “Supreme Court” will be able to fix security and content moderation issues due to the fact that this is such a small panel of people compared to the millions of pictures added to Facebook. If Facebook’s Supreme Court works like the US’ Supreme Court, where they focus on the most pressing and important cases, it may be possible that there will be some sort of change in the content on Facebook’s site. Facebook will have to be careful throughout this process of content moderation to avoid going against existing laws, policies, and rights. If Facebook’s Supreme Court is deemed successful, I would not be surprised if other popular social media platforms follow their track.
ReplyDeleteIt's really cool to see that elements of our government system are being incorporated in running a company. I think it will improve security and content moderation issues because it wouldn't be one person deciding anymore, but rather several people in a democratic way. When it comes to laws on technology, it's like walking on glass. We want the "bad" things on social media to stop, but at the same time, we can't violate violate people's 1st amendment right to freedom of speech, so then it becomes a question of how do we find a balance between regulating what people say on social media such that offensive lines are not crossed while also ensuring that people can exercise their first amendment rights? I think that if the government intervenes, it may turn into censorship if not done right, so the responsibility then lies in the hands of the company's hands, which is what Facebook is attempting to take on.
ReplyDeleteAlthough concept proposed is novel especially for a social media based company, I personally believe it may be instilling a false sense of security within users and those of the general public. Facebook itself has wide reaching and holds immense influence upon society and its citizens; therefore, I do not feel it is appropriate for a company such as this to assemble their own group of regulators to ensure proper implementation of policy moderation. In my opinion there needs to be a stronger regulatory organization in charge of monitoring social media based sites, reporting to their findings to the public. Thereby allowing the country as a whole have role in social media policies.
ReplyDeleteI honestly think that this could go either way, it could either solve, or worsen the issues that Facebook has because it has never been done before, and we have to wait until this plan takes action in order to see what is going to happen. I do believe that this could solve the security issue because as a board, there may be more ideas of solutions that can solve the problem, and they will be able to see when it has come to a point where it is unsafe because of lack of security. If Facebook's board does try to restrict people from posting certain things, which people have the right to under the Constitution, then Facebook will begin to have more problems, and this new Board could possibly become a big issue.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a very interesting idea that will certainly cause many changes within Facebook. Whether this will cause good changes or bad changes is still yet to be seen, but favorable results might just cause similar systems to pop up in other platforms. One such platform may be the popular social media app, Instagram. Since Instagram is owned by Facebook, this system may be integrated in an attempt to achieve similar moderation. I think that this group will need to be careful in what they do so they don’t cross the line and start to overly censor people and take away some of their ability to have free speech.
ReplyDeleteIn the bigger scheme of things, this sounds like a good idea. Facebook on its own is a private company and they are capable of having the right to censor or allow and sort of content that they want. Although, I don’t think that this “Supreme Court” will be able to fix security and content moderation issues due to the fact that this is such a small panel of people compared to the millions of pictures added to Facebook. If Facebook’s Supreme Court works like the US’ Supreme Court, where they focus on the most pressing and important cases, it may be possible that there will be some sort of change in the content on Facebook’s site. Facebook will have to be careful throughout this process of content moderation to avoid going against existing laws, policies, and rights. If Facebook’s Supreme Court is deemed successful, I would not be surprised if other popular social media platforms follow their track.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of my fellow peers, this is the right step forward for Facebook. It's genuinely impossible to judge anything from a completely unbiased perspective, especially not the hundreds of millions of pictures and various content uploaded to facebook constantly. This is more of a symbolic act, looking to directly address more controversial events with large scale impacts. In the first country to directly grant the unmovable right of free speech, it is imperative that action is taken to ensure that the right is protected. No system is perfect, but the decisions this so called "supreme court" makes could have a profound, large scale impact on everything from the day to day interactions we have online to how Americans get their media from. This is a broad enough court and policy, that it could do a great job of addressing many of the concerns people have with Social Media. Of course, the court could also make largely unfavorable decisions, but this goes for the Governments supreme court as well. For the peer above who questioned whether we genuinely want a corporate supreme court to interfere with public policy, what differentiates the trust you put in this court from the trust you put in the genuine supreme court.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Facebook's intent is good here. While I do think this was a good move for Facebook, objectively speaking I do not think it will do much. While technology grows fast, people with a lot of time on their hands are faster, and will always find a way to bypass the system. I'm not saying that this should not have been done, but I do still believe that it will not be that big of a wall to get past for determined people. In regards of the ethicality of the situation, as others said, this is a form of censorship. However, in the context of the situation, I do believe that this was a good call for Facebook and people on Facebook because it can weed out a lot of unnecessary comments. This may be too subjective on what will and won't be allowed, because the media tends to be very subjective: however, it is still a step in the right direction in terms of creating a welcoming environment for people to express themselves.
ReplyDelete-Emily Zhang sorry
ReplyDeleteI think that it's definitely an interesting concept, but I'd like to know how Facebook plans to actually implement this system and make it effective, as Facebook is a huge platform that puts out a very high number of posts every single day, making it complicated to regulate. Furthermore, setting guidelines for what's considered appropriate and what's not has its own level of complexity, as mentioned by many others about possibly infringing on First Amendment rights. As far as how big of a problem Facebook has that requires more content moderation, I personally believe that people have been doing the same sorts of things in real life for many, many years, whether it be providing fake news, insulting institutions, scamming, and so on. Becoming too strict on what can be said or shown can lead to legal issues about censorship. Hopefully Facebook plays their cards well to make changes for the better.
ReplyDeleteI fully believe that this will improve security and content moderation because there is going to be a board of people filtering through Facebook before anything is out in the public. In my opinion, I do not believe that this is an infringement on people's right to free speech because no one is forcing a person to use Facebook as a platform to express their ideas. If Facebook was the only way for a person to voice their opinions, then I believe that it would be a bigger constitutionality issue than it is right now. Also, if it were the government that required Facebook to acquire a "Supreme Court", that is an abuse of government power because they are not allowed to do so. Since Facebook is creating this on their own, it is their company and they have the right to create this board. I believe that information should be censored, not by the government, but by the companies in which people are posting inappropriate content. I believe there is too much out on the internet and it is increasing our societal issues.
ReplyDeleteFacebook's idea of creating a new system of screening and filtering is a great idea, however I am more concerned about the feasibility of this idea. Are they going to be going through every issue or just ones that are bigger and more publicly seen? Personally, I do not believe this is an infringement on the right to free speech because if someone does not wish to follow Facebook's rules, they can simply switch to another platform or make their own platform through a blog of some sorts. No one is forcing them to use facebook. In today's age, there needs to be some form of control for the internet.
ReplyDelete