![]() That paradoxical setup - an oversight board with no legally enforceable powers of oversight - created tension even before the decision on Wednesday. Trump’s accounts, nothing - no act of Congress, no judicial writ, no angry letter from Facebook shareholders - could stop him. ![]() Zuckerberg decided tomorrow to ignore the board’s advice and reinstate Mr. Its mandate is limited, and none of its rulings are binding, in any meaningful sense of that word. Its leaders were selected by Facebook, and its members are ( handsomely) paid out of the company’s pockets. They funded the group through a legally independent trust, filled it with hyper-credentialed experts and pledged to abide by its rulings.īut for all its claims of legitimacy, the oversight board has always had a Potemkin quality to it. Zuckerberg and other Facebook executives did everything they could to convince a skeptical public that the oversight board would have real teeth. Zuckerberg and his team decided, they were sure to inflame the online speech wars and make more enemies.īefore the decision on Wednesday, Mr. Trump’s presence on Facebook as fundamentally incompatible with their goal of reducing harmful misinformation and hate speech. Zuckerberg and his lieutenants, accusing them of politically motivated censorship.įacebook faced plenty of pressure in the other direction, too - both from Democrats and civil rights groups and from employees, many of whom saw Mr. When they finally did, Republicans raged at Mr. The former president rode Facebook to the White House in 2016, then tormented the company by repeatedly skirting its rules and daring executives to punish him for it. ![]() Zuckerberg would be more eager to avoid than the one about Mr. Zuckerberg and his policy team from criticism. If it worked, the oversight board would take responsibility for making the platform’s most contentious content decisions, while shielding Mr. (In 2018, for example, he got personally involved in the decision to bar Alex Jones, the Infowars conspiracy theorist.) But high-profile moderation decisions were often unpopular, and the blowback was often fierce. Zuckerberg had been called in as Facebook’s policy judge of last resort. The oversight board also served another purpose. Zuckerberg told Ezra Klein in a 2018 Vox podcast. “I think in any kind of good-functioning democratic system, there needs to be a way to appeal,” Mr. Zuckerberg first pitched the idea of a “Facebook Supreme Court” several years ago, he promoted it as a way to make the company’s governance more democratic, by forming an independent body of subject matter experts and giving them the power to hear appeals from users.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |