![]() ![]() This triggered understandable concerns that the company is defining for itself its duties toward the public. In issuing its statement of values and community guidelines, the company has already set out the rules the board will implement, and it has done so in a unilateral manner that undermines those very objectives. Facebook’s content-moderation system uses rules and standards that did not come from an elected legislature, or a Supreme Court or another source that carries democratic legitimacy. The first concern, mandate, is an issue when the objectives of a self-regulatory system are drawn up by an entity lacking the “democratic legitimacy” that a statutory or constitutional authority might carry. But such structures also can have advantages, and like transparency reports and GNI, this board could prove to be a promising exercise. ![]() The board may be the most interesting development in social media self-regulation since the 2008 Global Network Initiative on internet censorship and privacy rights, and since Google began the practice of publishing transparency reports in 2010.Īs part of Facebook’s system for monitoring and regulating content posted on its global platform, the board is subject to many of the criticisms that are typical for self-regulatory models, especially questions of mandate and accountability. Although Mark Zuckerberg initially spoke of the board as a “Supreme Court” of sorts, it is of course a self-regulatory body with global impact, not a public institution. After months of consultation, drawing up policies and setting up legal arrangements, Facebook is about to unveil its Oversight Board for content decisions. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |