Talk:Oversight Board (Meta)

Move request

The headline of this article is false and misleading & there doesn't seem to be a way to correct it. It isn't the 'Facebook Oversight Board', its name is the 'Oversight Board' and is run by a trust which is independent from Facebook. Can you please amend this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNickClegg (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Done Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Some Proposed Changes

Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.

Addition for History Section after first paragraph:

Zuckerburg has described the Oversight Board as a "Supreme Court," given its role in settlement, negotiation, and mediation proceedings. The Oversight Board has the ability to overrule content moderation decisions by intermediaries by applying Facebook's policies and considering public interest. The Oversight Board is modeled after the federal judicial system, as the Oversight Board gives precedential value to previous board decisions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cf2022 (talk • contribs) 02:28, December 22, 2020 (UTC)

Cf2022 (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cf2022: Looks good to me. I have added your proposal with some minor changes. Let me know if they're okay. Thanks for your contribution! P.S. Please include page numbers. Opencooper (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Needs serious revision

This article has the appearance of being written by Facebook's PR team. There is a significant body of criticism about the board, none of which appears in this article which, on the contrary, quotes Facebook as authority. Please flag for improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNickClegg (talk • contribs) — TheNickClegg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your assessment is incomplete. There is a "Responses" section which includes both positive and negative assessments by third parties. Per WP:CRITS, we prefer to avoid articles or sections focusing on criticism. Every entity known to man is subject to some kind of criticism, and every article we have could be a morass of that. BD2412 T 20:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The very first sentence includes unevidenced, subjective judgement of the OB: 'consequential' 'precedent-setting'. Wikipedia strives to be objective, neutral, authoritative, evidence-based. This article and especially this introductory description is none of those things. Furthermore, the historical context from which the OB emerged is fundamental to its existence. The global backlash against FB, cited abundantly on Wikipedia, elsewhere is central to its existence. As it stands, this article reproduces the language and framing of FB's PR department and reflects none of the body of scholarship and journalism that challenges that. I would kindly request that instead of reverting these edits, you reflect the content of them in the article. Thank you.

Introduction

This has now been locked and cannot be edited:

It currently says:

The Oversight Board is a body that makes consequential[no citation] precedent-setting [no citation] content moderation decisions (see #Table of decisions below [internal citation only]) on the social media platforms Facebook and Instagram. [No authority for entire first sentence which reflects only Facebook's view of the project] Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg approved the creation of the board in November 2018, shortly after a meeting with Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman, who had proposed the creation of a quasi-judiciary on Facebook.[3] Zuckerberg originally described it as a kind of "Supreme Court", given its role in settlement, negotiation, and mediation, including the power to override the company's decisions.[4] [Not objective or neutral, multiple authorities dispute this description. It is correct to say: 'Mark Zuckerberg conceived of it as a 'Supreme Court', a conceit disputed by constitutional scholars.]

Proposed edit:

The Oversight Board is a body set up by Facebook to oversee Facebook content moderation decisions following sustained global criticism of the social media platform. The board has limited powers defined by Facebook. Facebook also chose all members of the board. It is the special project of ex-British Prime Minister Nick Clegg who was brought into the company to help 'fix' its damaged image.

citations: https://www.ft.com/content/802ae18c-af43-437b-ae70-12a87c838571 https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-everyone-on-facebooks-oversight-board-should-resign/ https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-9881669cf3ddc8771aa423d54213e961

Facebook has claimed that it will make consequential precedent-setting content moderation decisions (see #Table of decisions below) on the social media platforms Facebook and Instagram. These claims are contested and un-evidenced.

No part of this article has ever been locked. I'm not sure where that impression comes from. As for the claims being "unevidenced", where the OB has ruled that removed posts must be restored, those posts have been restored per their ruling. The OB has said that their rulings will be precedential, and so far as I am aware, no one has raised as a criticism a claim that the OB will not treat their past decisions as precendents when reviewing future cases. It also seems wrong to describe this as a "special project" of Nick Clegg's, since sources in the article describe it as having been proposed by Noah Feldman in discussion with Mark Zuckerberg. BD2412 T 19:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Members

It currently says: Anyone can nominate a candidate for board membership, through a recommendations portal operated by the U.S. law firm Baker McKenzie.

No member has been appointed to the board through the open nomination system so this is misleading. It also gives the impression the present membership were selected by an open nomination scheme. This is untrue. All were appointed by Facebook.

Proposed edit: All members of the board were nominated and appointed by Facebook. Head of Facebook global communications, Nick Clegg personally selected many of the members including Helle Thorning-Schmidt. Citation: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-inside-story-of-nick-clegg-at-facebook-and-how-much-power-he-really-wields-w30wwt9j7

According to the New York Times

− board members are paid a six-figure salary for a few days work a month. The Oversight Board's charter includes a clause about members not bringing the board into disrepute, ie a non-disparagement clause.

citation: https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/oversight_board_charter.pdf − − The New York Times is among publications that now use the formulation that the board is "quasi independent".

Citation: Other publications use the formula "so-called independent" to reflect the fact that the Oversight Board has been constituted and staffed by Facebook appointees.

− The charter provides for future candidates to be nominated for board membership, through a recommendations portal operated by the U.S. law firm Baker McKenzie.

• Clauses prohibiting organization members from bringing the organization into disrepute are usually aimed at member public conduct (i.e., a member can be expelled if they are drunk in public or commit some embarrassing crime). These sources are paywalled, so I'd like to know what the sentence remarking on this says, specifically. BD2412 T 20:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

References

New member

Current edit: On April 20, 2021, it welcomed the newest board member, PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel, who was replacing Pamela S. Karlan, who had resigned in February 2021 to join the Biden administration. As of 2021, the United States has the most substantial representation with five members, including two of the four co-chairs of the board. Two board members come from South American countries, six come from countries all across Asia, three come from Africa including one with both African and European ties, who also counts towards three coming from Europe, and one comes from Australia.

This is strikingly odd unobjective language. Nossel was appointed not 'welcomed'. The article states that the nomination system is open. No evidence supports that assertion here.

Proposed: On April 20, 2021, it appointed the newest board member, PEN America CEO Suzanne Nosselto replace Pamela S. Karlan who resigned in February 2021 to join the Biden administration. There is no evidence that this appointment was made through the independent nomination system. As of 2021, the United States has the most substantial representation with five members, including two of the four co-chairs of the board. Two board members come from South American countries, six come from countries all across Asia, three come from Africa including one with both African and European ties, who also counts towards three coming from Europe, and one comes from Australia.

• I find this proposed "there is no evidence" wording to be odd. We usually don't use such wording unless there is a claim of X, and a reliable source discounting that claim. It becomes a matter of original research to say, without citing a source, that there is an absence of evidence for something. BD2412 T 20:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Governance

Current edit:

In order to ensure [inappropriate terminology that makes subjective judgement] the board's independence, Facebook established an irrevocable trust with $130 million in initial funding, expected to cover operational costs for over half a decade.[41][42] The board is able to hear appeals submitted by both Facebook and its users, and Facebook "will be required to respond publicly to any recommendations".[41] Notably, while the initial remit of the board gave it broad scope to hear anything that can be appealed on Facebook, the company stated that it would take the building of technical infrastructure in order for this to extend beyond the appeal of removals of content.[43][44] The entire Oversight Board is overseen by the Oversight Board Trust, which has the power to confirm or remove new board appointees, as well as ensure that the board is operating in accordance with its stated purpose.[41][42]

Board members indicated that the board would begin its work slowly and deliberately, with a focus on producing meaningful opinions in cases carefully selected to be representative of substantial issues.[45] Facebook also developed software to enable it to transfer cases to the board without compromising user privacy.[45] On April 13, 2021, the Oversight Board announced that it would start accepting appeals by users seeking to take down other people's content that had not been removed following an objection.[46]

Proposed edit: Facebook established an irrevocable trust with $130 million in initial funding, expected to cover operational costs for more than five years to ensure its financial independence. It is described by most high quality publications including the New York Times and Washington Post as 'quasi-independent'. It is governed by a charter that sets out its terms of reference. This was written by executives at Facebook. Its scope of work was set out in this foundational charter by Facebook. The Oversight Board is unable to change its terms of reference. All members were also appointed by Facebook. The entire Oversight Board is overseen by the Oversight Board Trust, which has the power to confirm or remove new board appointees, as well as ensure that the board is operating in accordance with its stated purpose. The Trustees were appointed by Facebook. citation: https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/2020/05/11/fb-oversight-board-edouek/

In conclusion

This article needs to be flagged for major revision. It arguably flauts Wikipedia's rules on flagrant advertising. The OB is a product of Facebook. The language used throughout the article is suggestive of product promotion. The lack of inclusion of a large body of journalism and academic articles that challenge this framing is unbalanced and misleading. It is inappropriate for the introduction to include unreferenced, unchallenged subjective judgments on the OB made by FB.

• I don't think the OB can reasonably be described as "a product of Facebook"; they aren't selling it or access to it or the use of it. There is no advertising campaign for it beyond routine press coverage. The fact that it's rulings are "consequential" is evidenced by their having had consequences, so far. As for whether they will be precedential, I see no source challenging the proposition that the OB will treat its own prior determinations as precedential in making future determinations. BD2412 T 20:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)