Facebook and Instagram users can now APPEAL any unwanted content

0

Facebook’s Supervisory Board accepts calls from Facebook and Instagram users about other people’s content allowed to remain on the platforms.

Founded last October, the board is able to make binding decisions about Facebook’s decisions about whether or not to remove content, even overruling the platform and executives in the process.

Since its launch, the $ 130 million (£ 105 million) board has enabled users to rely on the board to remove their own content.

But now Facebook is expanding its capacity so that people can also rely on content posted by others that can remain on one of the platforms, both of which are owned by Facebook.

Users can object to posts, photos, videos, comments, statuses, and shares that they believe should have been removed from the business.

Facebook's supervisory board must start accepting calls from users about other people's content allowed to remain on the platform (Dominic Lipinski / PA)

Facebook’s Board of Trustees should start accepting calls from users about other people’s content allowed to remain on the platforms. The Oversight Board, which started last October, decides what may or may be removed from the platform

How to report content that has been left behind

If someone thinks that a piece of content should not be on Facebook or Instagram, he should first report the content to Facebook.

The Facebook Help Center (facebook.com/help) explains how to do this for different types of content.

If Facebook decides to keep track of the content after review, the reporter will receive a reference ID from the Oversight Board in their support inbox.

From there, Facebook’s decision can appeal to the Oversight Board.

The ‘independent’ board, which consists of 20 members and is known as Facebook’s ‘supreme court’, said the move is an important step towards a more principled and transparent model of content moderation.

“Allowing users to appeal against content they want to see removed from Facebook is a significant expansion of the Oversight Board’s capabilities,” said Thomas Hughes, the Oversight Board’s administrative director.

The board was created to ensure that fewer decisions on very important content issues are made by Facebook alone and that better decisions can be made through an independent and transparent process that works to ensure human rights and freedom of expression.

“Today’s announcement is another step to make this happen.”

As before, content eligible for appeal to the forum still includes posts, statuses, photos, videos, comments, and shares.

In a blog post To confirm the expanded capacity for the board, Facebook said it will be rolling out the functionality in the coming weeks.

“Today’s announcement represents an extension of the initial scope of the board,” Guy Rosen, Facebook’s VP of Integrity, said in the post.

‘From today [Tuesday], people using Facebook and Instagram now have the option to appeal the content of others that has been left to the Oversight Board.

Facebook announced its Oversight Board in October, which decides what is allowed or removed from the platform.  News from Facebook's so-called 'Supreme Court' came in amid growing concerns about disinformation and manipulation surrounding the US election

Facebook announced its Oversight Board in October, which decides what is allowed or removed from the platform.  News from Facebook's so-called 'Supreme Court' came in amid growing concerns about disinformation and manipulation surrounding the US election

Facebook announced its Oversight Board in October, which decides what is allowed or removed from the platform. News from Facebook’s so-called ‘Supreme Court’ came in amid growing concerns about disinformation and manipulation surrounding the US election

“ We expect everyone on Facebook and Instagram to be able to appeal content left behind in the coming weeks. ”

The Board of Trustees makes binding decisions about whether posts or advertisements violate company standards.

Since its release in October 2020, if content was removed from Facebook or Instagram and a user disagreed with Facebook’s revised decision to keep it low, that content was eligible for final appeal to the board.

A panel of experts to rule on content was first proposed by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in 2018 as a “ supreme court ” that could overturn the company’s decisions before finally becoming a reality two years later.

The board says on its website, “As the community grew to more than two billion people, it became increasingly clear to the Facebook company that it shouldn’t be making so many decisions on its own about voice and online safety.

“The Oversight Board was created to help Facebook answer some of the toughest questions about free speech online – what to delete, what to leave, and why.”

The panel of experts to decide on the content was first suggested by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg (pictured) in 2018

The panel of experts to decide on the content was first suggested by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg (pictured) in 2018

The panel of experts to decide on the content was first suggested by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg (pictured) in 2018

The board consists of 20 panelists, although this number is expected to eventually grow to 40.

According to a report earlier this year in the New Yorker, Facebook’s Supervisory Board members each earn a six-figure salary and only work about 15 hours a week.

The board has been criticized for its ‘leftist’ members, including ex-Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger and Neil Kinnock’s daughter-in-law.

Critics accused Zuckerberg of “ruining” his chance to establish a “meaningful” and “politically balanced” oversight committee because so few members have conservative credentials.

In March, Rusbridger, a member of the Oversight Board, praised his independence, saying there is no such thing as “pleasing” the social network.

Speaking before the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, Rusbridger said that fooling Facebook’s economic model is “ not our problem. ”

“If you wanted to please Facebook, I think you would have chosen a different group of people,” he said.

‘In my experience of my colleagues so far, they are quite silly, they don’t want anything to do with Facebook, they throw Facebook out of our meetings when we realize there are people there.

“So we feel like we don’t work for Facebook at all and that’s why I don’t think there is an obligation to be nice to Facebook or to be horrible to Facebook.”

However, some news agencies called the board “ quasi-independent, ” as Facebook provided the funding and helped choose the board members.

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT FACEBOOK’S CONTENT OVERSIGHT BOARD

WHAT DOES THE MONITORING BOARD REVIEW?

The board, which some refer to as Facebook’s “ supreme court, ” rules on whether to display certain individual content on the site. It may also recommend changes to Facebook’s content policy, based on a case decision or at the request of the company.

The board reviews posts, videos, photos and comments that the company has decided to remove from Facebook or its photo sharing site Instagram, as well as instances where content has been left behind.

This could include topics such as nudity, violence or hate speech. Facebook has said the board’s job will include ads, groups, pages, profiles and events in the future, but has not given a timeframe.

It won’t handle direct messages from Instagram, Facebook’s WhatsApp messaging platforms, Messenger, its dating service, or its Oculus virtual reality products.

Facebook expects the board to take only “ dozens ” of cases initially, a small percentage of the thousands it expects will eventually be brought to the board. In 2019, users appealed more than 10 million pieces of content that Facebook removed or took action on.

But Facebook’s head of global affairs Nick Clegg previously told Reuters that he thought the chosen cases would have broader relevance to content dispute patterns.

HOW DOES THE BOARD WORK?

The board decides which cases it assesses, which can be referred by a user who has exhausted Facebook’s normal appeals process or by Facebook itself for matters that may be ‘important and difficult’.

Users who disagree with Facebook’s final decision on their content have 15 days to file a case with the board through the board’s website.

Each case is judged by a panel of five members, at least one of which is from the same geographic region where the case originated.

The panel may ask subject matter experts to assist in making its decision, which must then be finalized by the entire board.

The decision of the board of directors – which is binding unless it could break the law – must be made and implemented within 90 days, although Facebook may request a 30-day accelerated review for exceptional cases, including those with “ urgent consequences for the real world ‘.

Users are informed of the decision of the board in their case and the board makes the decision public.

When the board makes policy recommendations, Facebook will provide public updates and publish a response to the guidelines and follow-up actions within 30 days.

For more information on the activities of the board, see Facebook’s proposal Statutes

WHO IS ON THE SUPERVISOR?

The board will eventually have about 40 members.

Facebook chose the four co-chairs – former US federal circuit judge Michael McConnell and US constitutional law expert Jamal Greene, Colombian lawyer Catalina Botero-Marino and former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt – who then jointly elected the other 16 members. mentioned so far.

Some came from the global consultation held by Facebook to get feedback on the supervisory board.

Part-time members to date include constitutional law experts, civil rights advocates, academics, journalists, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and a former judge of the European Court of Human Rights.

The members are paid by a trust that Facebook has established and have a term of three years for a maximum of nine years.

The trustees can remove a member before the end of their term for violating the board’s code of conduct, but not for substantive decisions.

Thomas Hughes, former Executive Director of Article 19 of the Freedom of Expression Rights Group, was appointed to oversee the full-time administrative staff of the Board.