Facebook Plans Launch of Its Own 'Supreme Court' For Handling Takedown Appeals (arstechnica.com) 27
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Facebook, which has managed to transcend geographic borders to draw in a population equal to roughly a third of all human life on Earth, has made its final charter for a "Supreme Court" of Facebook public. The company pledges to launch this initiative by November of next year. The new Oversight Board will have five key powers, according to a charter (PDF) Facebook released yesterday. It can "request that Facebook provide information" it needs in a timely manner; it can make interpretations of Facebook standards and guidelines "in light of Facebook's articulated values"; and it can instruct the company to allow or remove content, to uphold or reverse a decision leading to content being permitted or removed, and to issue "prompt, written explanations of the board's decisions."
"If someone disagrees with a decision we've made, they can appeal to us first, and soon they will be able to further appeal this to the independent board," company CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a letter (PDF). "As an independent organization, we hope it gives people confidence that their views will be heard and that Facebook doesn't have the ultimate power over their expression." The board will launch with at least 11 members and should eventually get up to 40. The entity will contract its services to Facebook. Participants will serve a maximum of three three-year terms each and will be paid for their time. Their decisions will "be made publicly available and archived in a database of case decisions," with details subject to certain data or privacy restrictions. Facebook can also contact the board for an "automatic and expedited review" in exceptional circumstances, "when content could result in urgent real world consequences," such as, for example, if a mass-murderer is livestreaming his crimes. The panel's decisions will be binding, Facebook added, and the company will implement its findings promptly, "unless implementation of a resolution could violate the law."
"If someone disagrees with a decision we've made, they can appeal to us first, and soon they will be able to further appeal this to the independent board," company CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a letter (PDF). "As an independent organization, we hope it gives people confidence that their views will be heard and that Facebook doesn't have the ultimate power over their expression." The board will launch with at least 11 members and should eventually get up to 40. The entity will contract its services to Facebook. Participants will serve a maximum of three three-year terms each and will be paid for their time. Their decisions will "be made publicly available and archived in a database of case decisions," with details subject to certain data or privacy restrictions. Facebook can also contact the board for an "automatic and expedited review" in exceptional circumstances, "when content could result in urgent real world consequences," such as, for example, if a mass-murderer is livestreaming his crimes. The panel's decisions will be binding, Facebook added, and the company will implement its findings promptly, "unless implementation of a resolution could violate the law."
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It's their business, they don't have to do shit beyond follow the law. As long as it's transparent, which they claim, then that's actually pretty good.
It's Facebook, who gives a shit anyway. All this angst over shitty online cancers like Facebook and Twitter is pretty stupid. Don't like them, don't fucking use them and nothing of value will be lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Let Facebook make all the early mistakes, then when the wrinkles are ironed out and people are used to the idea of a privately funded legal system, force everyone into using one.
Nice.
Re: (Score:1)
Thing is they secretly do like Facebook.
Facebook is the world's greatest free political campaigning, propaganda and radicalization platform. Cambridge Analytica took full advantage of its data-mining capabilities to target individuals who they knew they could influence directly, and in a way that made any kind of public scrutiny extremely difficult. They were not the only ones, just the ones who got caught.
That's why people moan so much about censorship on Facebook and Twitter and getting banned. They know
Re: CONFLICT OF INTEREST (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is like "appealing" the tax values at the county office. They are going to cuss you out, laugh at you, make you beg for it, and then give you 50 cents off your bill in exchange for you going to credit counseling while you have zero debt.
Your chain of events assumes one ever gets past step one, wait for a hearing date. 11 people? Seriously? Bad actors will immediately clog it so bad that hearing dates will be decades in the future.
Where are they going to find... (Score:2)
...eleven to forty incorruptible benevolent people with no conflicts of interest (who all get along with each other)? And if so, anyone you mind if we eliminated the office of President and put them in charge?
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting (Score:2)
First they want to launch their own currancy, now a Supreme Court. They really do think they're worthy of nation state status. Next up, a standing army.
Re: Interesting (Score:2)
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Informative)
The Facebook charter (the linked PDF) does not appear to mention a "Supreme Court". They call it an Oversight Board. It appears "Supreme Court" is the invention of the article author.
This looks to me like an attempt by Facebook to get ahead of the content-management problem with a solution they like, rather than wait for a legislative one.
Re: (Score:2)
Next up, a standing army.
Nah. Facebook is all about leapfrogging the latest technology. The US already has a Space Force now . . . so Facebook will aim at a Hyperspace Force!
Facebook can also contact the board for an "automatic and expedited review" in exceptional circumstances, "when content could result in urgent real world consequences," such as, for example, if a mass-murderer is livestreaming his crimes. The panel's decisions will be binding, Facebook added, and the company will implement its findings promptly, "unless implementation of a resolution could violate the law.
This all seems most terribly completely complicated.
I would suggest that Facebook constructs a Gladiator Roman Colosseum to settle disputes. Lawyers would dress up as Samnites, Thraex, Myrmillo, and Retiarius. Instead of some long-winded, boring, legalese speeches that nobody understands anyway . . . the lawyers/gladiators would just go at it, and try to h
Re: (Score:2)
It will be a drone army, ostensibly delivering internet access to remote parts of poor countries, but also providing "security" for local governments.
Re: Interesting (Score:2)
Seven reasons why local civilian government drones need to carry Hellfire missiles:
1. To prevent vandalism
2. Terrorists!!!
3. Building code enforcement
4. Forest fire prevention
5. War on drug users
6. Climate change
7. But who will think of the children?
Re: Interesting (Score:1)
a third of all human life on Earth (Score:2)
Cheese and rice.
If this is indeed a future we must endure, sadly, the average facebroke poster will be significantly likely to name more Facebook Supreme court justices, than actual US Supreme Court Justices.
Thankfully, Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas remain in the current news cycle, or there would be no one else [youtube.com] memory worthy.
Meanwhile if you're a US Senator (Score:2)
For those playing at home; it's not censorship unless the government does it, but, well, the US Senate kinda is the government.
Re: (Score:2)
For those playing at home; it's not censorship unless the government does it,
Uh... yes it is. Censorship doesn't just occur at the state level.
What you meant, if you wanted to be technically correct, is that it's not a 1st Amendment violation. But it's definately an afront to freedom of speech (the philosophical concept) and censorship.
The 1st Amendment is not what grants you Freedom of Speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to be a shared societal value. The 1st Amendment merely protects it from Government tyranny.
Stop repeating XKCD as if he were some kind of authority. He's j
So a CoC is now a court? (Score:2)
The publisher will set limits on what can be published globally?
Re: So a CoC is now a court? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Facebook Sharia"
Re: (Score:1)
It's funny really. You have one side complaining that Facebook is banning too much, and the other complaining that Facebook isn't doing enough about violent, hateful content. One side would have you believe they are puritans, the other tells you they are uncaring and too permissive.
Facebook is blocking advertisements by target (Score:1)
You're not a court. Nor a state! (Score:1)
You can write whatever you want in your terms & conditions. At, best, it means nothing, since you can't forbid people to go to a (real) court. At worst, *this* will end you up in court!
At least in non-corporate-fascist-oligarchies.
That aside, censorship should be considered *assistance* on the crimes committed in these videos! E.g. if you censor a rape or murder, you put a protective veil around them, allowing them to keep operating! If you don't at least *catch them*, you have just actively *helped the
'violate the law' (Score:2)
Phrasing People! (Score:1)