•   
  •   
  •   

Politics Facebook - not its 'Supreme Court' - needs to enforce its moderation policies, according to one of the board members who called the company 'lazy' for pushing the Trump decision to the group

20:45  06 may  2021
20:45  06 may  2021 Source:   businessinsider.com

Fact check: A viral image of restaurant diners does not depict the Facebook content policy team

  Fact check: A viral image of restaurant diners does not depict the Facebook content policy team A post falsely claims to show the Facebook team that sets the platform's rules. The image has been shared many times claiming to show various groups.“Facebook community standards team,” it claims. “This is literally who bans us.

a close up of a man: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. REUTERS/Erin Scott/File Photo © Provided by Business Insider Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. REUTERS/Erin Scott/File Photo
  • Oversight Board members said it isn't their responsibility to decide the length of Trump's Facebook ban.
  • One said Facebook was "lazy" to not decide its own rules for handling penalties.
  • On Wednesday, the board upheld Facebook's decision to remove Trump from its platform.
  • See more stories on Insider's business page.

A member of Facebook's Oversight Board said its decision not to rule on how long former President Donald Trump should stay suspended had more to do with the company's content moderation process.

EXPLAINER: Will Donald Trump return to Facebook?

  EXPLAINER: Will Donald Trump return to Facebook? Former President Donald Trump will find out whether he gets to return to Facebook on Wednesday, when the social network’s quasi-independent Oversight Board plans to announce its ruling in the high-profile case. The decision likely to stir up strong feelings no matter which way it goes. If the board rules in Trump's favor, Facebook has 30 days to reinstate his account. If it upholds Facebook’s decision, Trump will remain “indefinitely suspended.” That means he’ll remain banned from the platform for as long as Facebook sees fit. Here’s how the process works and what might happen after Wednesday’s announcement.

John Samples - vice president of the Libertarian think tank Cato Institute and one of the members of the independent review board - made the comment in an interview with Axios. It came a day after the group upheld Facebook's decision that kept Trump barred from using the platform but did not decide for Facebook how long the ban would last, which is what the company was asking the board to do.

"This wasn't a decision about Donald Trump - this was a decision about Facebook," Samples told Axios' Sara Fischer.

Facebook suspended Trump indefinitely on January 7 after the siege on the US Capitol. The Oversight Board said that it supports Facebook's decision to remove Trump due to a risk of incitement of violence but that Facebook should be the one who makes its rules and enforces them.

Trump's Facebook ban upheld by Oversight Board

  Trump's Facebook ban upheld by Oversight Board The board said that Facebook was "justified in suspending Mr. Trump’s accounts," but that the company should reassess its decision to ban him "indefinitely."The decision to uphold the ban is a blow to Trump's hopes to post again to Facebook or Instagram anytime soon, but it opens the door to him eventually returning to the platforms. Facebook must complete a review of the length of the suspension within six months, the board said.

"We're not here to invent new rules for Facebook," Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the former Prime Minister of Denmark and a fellow Facebook board member, said in the Axios interview. She said it was "lazy" of Facebook to ask the board to resolve an issue that was their responsibility to address, the issue being the duration of Trump's suspension.

The board members said in the interview that Facebook ought to apply the same standards to all users: private citizens and high-profile political figures alike. Doing so could also help combat what some on the right view as tech platforms' discrimination of conservative voices, Thorning-Schmidt told the outlet.

"There should be no special exception for political leaders," Samples told Axios.

The board was created in October to review content moderation decisions that Facebook makes, and the company poured $130 million into the independent group. Companies like Facebook have historically taken a hands-off approach to content moderation policies. And so when the firm created its Oversight Board, which some have come to call a mini "supreme court," some experts expressed concern that it was a way for Facebook to skirt its responsibility.

Facebook board decision on Trump ban pleases no one

  Facebook board decision on Trump ban pleases no one Facebook's Oversight Board's long-awaited ruling on former President Trump's account ban pushed the decision back to the Silicon Valley giant, fueling calls for government regulation and oversight from both sides of the aisle. Democrats and advocates have criticized the process and the board's decision to leave open the ability for Trump to return, while Republicans have centered their criticism around accusations that Facebook is censoring conservatives through the ban. Trump, unsurprisingly, also slammed the decision - lumping together Facebook, Twitter and Google.

Read more: Former Cambridge Analytica director Brittany Kaiser talks data rights legislation and the future of Big Tech under Biden

The board made that same criticism in its case summary that it published yesterday.

"In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then referring this case to the Board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities," the Board wrote. "The Board declines Facebook's request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty."

Facebook responded shortly after, noting that it was pleased with how the board upheld its decision but noted that the group did not specify how long Trump's suspension should last.

"Instead, the board criticized the open-ended nature of the suspension, calling it an 'indeterminate and standardless penalty,' and insisted we review our response," Facebook said in a blog post.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Facebook wanted its $130 million 'Supreme Court' to solve its policy enforcement problems. The board's decision to punt on Trump's ban shows how the initiative has backfired. .
Since the group refused to rule on Trump's suspension duration, Facebook finds itself back where it started: tasked with solving its own problems. It's on Facebook to solve its long-standing content moderation dilemmasFacebook's Oversight Board may have launched recently, but the reason for its inception stretches far back.Facebook, like other tech platforms, has historically taken a hands-off approach in judging if content should be taken down on its site, which is used by about two billion people worldwide. As CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said, the company does not want to be "the arbiter of truth.

usr: 1
This is interesting!