![]() Because neither entry was still available on the platform, the Board opted to choose a new case. In a statement, the Board said that the original post, a comment beneath which had been removed for violating Facebook’s hate speech rules, had been deleted. The first case to be announced by the oversight board, coded 2020-001-FB-UA, was actually withdrawn from consideration on December 3rd, 2020. On December 1st, the board outlined that it would select cases based on their potential to “affect lots of users around the world.” Other factors it would take into account included “critical importance to public discourse” and to “raise important questions about Facebook’s policies.” Each instance would be ruled upon by a panel of five members, one of whom had to be from the “region implicated in the content.” When a ruling is made, the board passes it to Facebook, which has seven days to act upon the binding resolution, and respond to the board’s policy recommendations within the next 30 days. The board said that Facebook’s rules needed to be clearer about its list of “dangerous individuals” and to better inform users “how to make their intent clear when discussing dangerous individuals and organizations.” Facebook took the image down, citing the promotion of a dangerous organization, but the poster said the image was uploaded to mirror the similarities between the political discourse then and now. Case 2020-005-FB-UA featured a person publishing an image of Nazi Joseph Goebbels with an attributed quote describing how appeals to emotion, rather than logic, makes effective political communications. One thing that is likely to change in future is a requirement for users to be clear about their intention when posting certain images. Hughes said “users need more clarity and more precision from the community standards.” McConnell, meanwhile, said that Facebook’s decision-making process was “a bit opaque.” On a call to discuss the judgments, director of oversight board administration Thomas Hughes and co-chair Michael McConnell both said that the gap between Facebook’s public-facing community standards and its private moderation guidelines was too broad. It added that the site should be clearer about its use of automated enforcement and revise its community guidelines to better explain the exception made for breast cancer images.īy subscribing, you are agreeing to Engadget's Terms and Privacy Policy. The board, however, said that it would continue to hear the appeal and said that a “lack of proper human oversight” raises “human rights concerns” with the site’s automatic moderation. When this case was selected for analysis, Facebook subsequently reversed its decision and asked the board to dismiss it. Several of the images depicted breasts and nipples, which Facebook has effectively outlawed as part of its nudity policy. Similarly, Case 2020-004-IG-UA concerned a Brazilian user who posted eight images to their Instagram as part of “Pink October.” That is a campaign in Brazil to raise awareness of breast cancer, where the images depicted the symptoms of breast cancer and how to identify them. The board, however, said that taken in context, while “pejorative or offensive,” did not “advocate hatred” or otherwise cause a direct incitement to violence. Moderators said that the post contained language that had been interpreted as contravening the site’s policies on hate speech. That included case 2020-002-FB-UA, where a statement made by a Myanmar-based user asking about a lack of outrage about the treatment of Uyghur Muslims was taken down. The board overturned four decisions where Facebook had taken down a post for contravening its policies. The board has, in its initial findings, overturned four of Facebook’s moderation decisions, upheld one, and issued nine policy recommendations. The topics cover hate speech, misinformation around COVID-19, and the right of uses to post non-sexual images of breasts without falling foul of moderation. Facebook’s Oversight Board has issued its first five judgments on cases it selected to rule upon on December 1st.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |