Oversight facebook covid19clark theverge1/31/2024 ![]() Trump and his enablers remain unrepentant, which means they are still a threat to public safety. It is an illusion disguised as a remedy.įacebook’s strategy appears to be alignment with winners, which may explain why the leaders of India and Brazil are not held to the same benchmark as Donald Trump and, even now, are using the Facebook group of companies to incite violence and spread disinformation. The Oversight Board has been structured to deal with individual posts, rather than the systemic flaws of Facebook. Enforcement is inconsistent, when it happens at all. Despite terms of service to the contrary, Facebook permits harmful content to pervade its sites. and Duterte in the Philippines, have harnessed Facebook to gain and consolidate their power. ![]() Some authoritarian leaders, like Trump in the U.S. Governments have failed to protect their citizens from harmful technology. The sad truth is that harmful content is highly engaging and serves as a lubricant for Facebook’s core business.įourth, lack of legitimacy. The board is powerless by design to step in and address the constant churn of disinformation, hate speech or questionable content that’s live on the site. The Oversight Board can take on only a handful of cases, always with a significant delay. There are millions of problematic posts on Facebook every day, the vast majority of which leave the victims without recourse. It gives the appearance of oversight, but the process is ultimately controlled by Facebook itself. Cases are heard in private, by a hand-picked, paid board which reports findings back to Facebook for action. Only one entity can refer cases to the Oversight Board and guarantee their review-Facebook. The Oversight Board will provide cover for Facebook to do what it wants to do. This is likely Facebook’s preferred outcome, as Trump is good for their business. ![]() If the First Amendment is the only consideration, as is likely to be the case, the Oversight Board will recommend reinstating Trump. The Trump ban is a matter of public safety, a perfect example of the limits of free speech. The Oversight Board has a quasi-legal structure and will make judgments based on arguments of legality with a bias towards Facebook’s extreme interpretation of free speech. The ban may be temporary, and the Oversight Board is an effort to cloak harmful decisions in a veil of legitimacy.įirst, mandate. Shouldn’t we celebrate the ban, then, and tout Facebook’s referral of Trump’s “case” to their Oversight Board for deliberation? Sadly, no. The organization we represent, the Real Facebook Oversight Board, was formed because our members-leading civil rights leaders, experts and academics- feared Facebook was being used to organize a coup in real time. The reality is that Facebook failed for years to take action over Donald Trump’s repeated use of its platform to incite violence, spread disinformation, and ultimately try to subvert the election. And it is past time to break up tech monopolies and encourage business models that empower, rather than exploit users. To restore privacy and self-determination, there need to much greater limits on the ownership and exploitation of personal data by businesses. To change incentives and make tech safe, there should be personal liability for tech engineers and executives who cause harm. We recommend regulation along three dimensions: safety, privacy, and competition. It’s clear that self-regulation has failed, and governments can no longer shirk responsibility for protecting citizens from harmful technology platforms. An additional 400,000 plus have died from COVID-19 in the U.S., many of them influenced by disinformation amplified by social media. Activists and dissidents have died in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, India and Pakistan in part because of Facebook’s inaction. Sadly, America got its answer: five people died at the insurrection on January 6, some of whom stewed for month in hate speech on Facebook. Last September, we joined a statement calling on Mark Zuckerberg to ban President Trump and asked asked if blood needed to be spilled before he took action to stop hate and disinformation on his platforms.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |