Facebook announced the first 20 members of its oversight board that will decide what controversial content is allowed on Facebook and Instagram (FB)

[ad_1]

facebook ceo mark zuckerberg

  • Facebook has published the names of the first 20 members of its new independent oversight board.
  • The “supreme court”-style body will make rulings over what controversial content will be allowed on the social network.
  • In theory, it has the power to overrule the company itself and CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
  • Its members include a former prime minister of Denmark, a former European Court of Human Rights judge, and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.

Facebook has announced the first members of its new “supreme court”-style oversight board — and it includes a former prime minister of Denmark, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and several constitutional law experts and rights advocates.

On Wednesday, the company published the names of the first 20 members of its independent oversight board, which is tasked with ruling on what controversial content should and shouldn’t be allowed on Facebook and Instagram. It will be able to overturn decisions by Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg about policing the social networks, and is a high-profile response to criticism of how the social media company handles problematic content.

Facebook said the board’s members have lived in 27 countries and speak at least 29 languages, though a quarter of the group and two of the four co-chairs are from the US, where the company is headquartered.

The co-chairs, who selected the other members jointly with Facebook, are former US federal circuit judge and religious freedom expert Michael McConnell, constitutional law expert Jamal Greene, Colombian attorney Catalina Botero-Marino and former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt.

Among the initial cohort are: former European Court of Human Rights judge András Sajó, Internet Sans Frontières Executive Director Julie Owono, Yemeni Nobel Peace Prize laureate Tawakkol Karman, Australian internet governance researcher Nicolas Suzor and Pakistani digital rights advocate Nighat Dad.

Nick Clegg, Facebook’s head of global affairs, told Reuters in a Skype interview that the board’s composition was important but that its credibility would be earned over time.

“I don’t expect people to say, ‘Oh hallelujah, these are great people, this is going to be a great success’ — there’s no reason anyone should believe that this is going to be a great success until it really starts hearing difficult cases in the months and indeed years to come,” he said.

The oversight board will start work immediately, and Clegg said it would begin hearing cases this summer.

The board, which will grow to about 40 members and which Facebook has pledged $130 million to fund for at least six years, will make public, binding decisions on a small slice of controversial cases where users have exhausted Facebook’s usual appeals process. The company can also refer significant decisions to the board, including on ads or on Facebook groups.

The board can make policy recommendations to Facebook based on case decisions, to which the company will publicly respond.

“We are not the internet police, don’t think of us as sort of a fast-action group that’s going to swoop in and deal with rapidly moving problems,” co-chair McConnell told reporters on a conference call, saying the board would instead deliver “an after-the-fact, deliberative, second look.”

Facebook said when reporting its most recent quarterly results that around 3 billion users interacted with at least one of its apps each month in the quarter.

The oversight board members’ roles are part-time but the board’s administrative head, Thomas Hughes, said working hours had not been decided. He said members’ pay will be set at a normal level for the technology sector but would not be disclosed.

Some free expression and internet governance experts told Reuters they thought the board’s first members were a diverse, impressive group, though some were concerned there were not more content moderation experts or that it was too heavy on US members. Facebook said one reason for having a strong set of US members was that some of its hardest decisions or appeals in recent years had begun in America.

“I don’t feel like they made any daring choices,” said Jillian C. York, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s director of international freedom of expression.

David Kaye, UN special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, told Reuters the board’s efficacy would be shown when it started hearing cases, but that it could not be a catch-all solution to issues of online speech on the site.

“The big question,” he said, “will be, are they taking questions that might result in decisions, or judgments as this is a court, that go against Facebook’s business interests?”

Do you work at Facebook? Contact Business Insider reporter Rob Price via encrypted messaging app Signal (+1 650-636-6268), encrypted email ([email protected]), standard email ([email protected]), Telegram/Wickr/WeChat (robaeprice), or Twitter DM (@robaeprice). We can keep sources anonymous. Use a non-work device to reach out. PR pitches by standard email only, please.

SEE ALSO: There’s a little-noticed red flag in Facebook and Google’s latest financial reports, and it highlights a worrying weakness among their customers

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Pathologists debunk 13 coronavirus myths



[ad_2]