[Thread] Facebook Oversight Board says it is “working hard to set the Board up to begin operating later this year”
which implies that the company also did not rule out taking action on them. Will Oremus / @willoremus : I asked Twitter for comment on these Khamenei tweets that Trump's FCC chair suddenly seems to care about. A spokesman directed me to guidelines that say “foreign policy saber-rattling on economic or military issues” generally does not violate its rules on “glorifying violence.” https://twitter.com/... @ericbolling : Fact check this @Twitter: As a @twitter stockholder, I am dumping my shares today. Rationale: New fact check policy opens #Twitter up to countless lawsuits over erroneous fact-checking and for biased fact-checking. What a can of worms @Jack is opening.. #SellingTwitterStock https://twitter.com/... @jason_kint : And here is the White House official account now with the same tweet labeled serving a notice from Twitter. It's hard to believe Twitter isn't on strong legal ground to do this. That said, the other tech platforms should be supporting Twitter in this right. https://twitter.com/... @jason_kint : interesting. not sure our agency commissioners should be diving in real-time. I believe this FCC tweet, shared by White House no less, muddies situation especially w Griffin comparison. Her tweet was removed, IOW Twitter took action. The remaining tweet is a news report about it. https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/... Piers Morgan / @piersmorgan : The White House is officially endorsing the President's threat to shoot Americans. This is absolutely disgraceful. 👇 https://twitter.com/... David Axelrod / @davidaxelrod : You might ask if this really is the time to cheap shot the mayor of a shaken city & threaten more violence? It is if your MO is to inflame and exploit any crisis for your own perceived political advantage. You see tragedy. He sees opportunity. https://twitter.com/... Chris Megerian / @chrismegerian : Apart from the profanity, why is a White House advisor criticizing a technology platform for allowing protestors to organize? That seems to fall under freedom of assembly. https://twitter.com/... @jason_kint : In sharp contrast, here is how same statement currently looks on Facebook and Instagram. Facebook's CEO went out strong yesterday across tv news claiming to differentiate his company in support of free speech. That's misleading as to what happens when adding a label. https://twitter.com/... Jonathan Lemire / @jonlemire : And now the official White House account reposts the president's tweet that was flagged by Twitter for promoting violence https://twitter.com/... @ow : Twitter has finally done the bare minimum after years of condoning these types of tweets. Wild to see Twitter do this while Mark Zuckerberg is saying Facebook shouldn't have to do anything at all. https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
@oversightboardOversight Board
Context & Ripple Effects
This announcement lands mid-crisis for Facebook: Twitter has begun labeling President Trump's posts, the White House is reposting flagged content, and the Biden campaign has escalated pressure with an open letter to Zuckerberg demanding stronger misinformation rules ([[a:954625]]). Facebook's stated position — that platforms shouldn't be forced to act on contested speech — left it without a visible mechanism for appeals.
The Oversight Board is that mechanism, and its promise to begin operating 'later this year' turns an abstract governance project into a near-term test case machine. Within months of launching it would be accepting public comment on Facebook's Trump ban decision ([[a:962628]]), making this startup phase the hinge between Facebook's labeling stance and how its highest-profile rulings actually play out.
First-order effects
Facebook gains a concrete answer to mounting political criticism: contested moderation calls can be framed as pending review by an independent board rather than unilateral CEO decisions.
Second-order effects
If the board proves credible, other platforms are explicitly invited in — the co-chair has said tech companies would be 'more than welcome' to work with it ([[a:963078]]) — turning a Facebook-built body into potential shared infrastructure for content appeals.
Third-order effects
The board's early caseload, culminating in the Trump ban ruling, sets the template for whether external adjudication of platform speech decisions carries real force or functions as cover — activists pressing for policies applied evenly worldwide ([[a:962094]]) will judge it by consistency across markets.
The trend: Content moderation is shifting from unilateral platform discretion toward formalized external appeal bodies, with Facebook's Oversight Board as the first large-scale experiment.
I have complicated thoughts about an oversight board for Facebook, but if they do not hold an emergency meeting right this weekend, I don't think any of my complicated thoughts matter because the board clearly doesn't matter. I'm not wasting my brain cells analyzing vaporware.
The main issue is your overlord goes on national TV to mislead the public and help weaponize public discourse against a competitor. eg 1) Twitter didn't “censor” expression, they labeled 2) microtargeted info/ads avoid public scrutiny and 3) Facebook does “fact check.” https://tw…
A reminder that Facebook's Oversight Board can only review content FB decided to take down. So even if they wanted to be helpful during the company's current self-inflicted meltdown, they couldn't be. https://twitter.com/...
There are 2 separate issues here. 1. If the OB is ready to hear cases at all. Clearly no, and it's reasonable for them to take their time to get this right. Its legitimacy depends on it. Some today are “The food sucks, is undercooked, and the kitchen is too slow in serving it!” h…
2/2 To extend what @zeynep is arguing: if the Facebook “oversight” board does not convene, now, then it is fair to conclude that they are just decorative. If not now, when?
I hate pre-announcements. They're purely manipulative. Don't let companies (or governments) get away with claiming credit for products, policies, or organizations that don't actually exist yet. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. https://twitter.com/...
1. Who the hell are these people 2. We DO need independent oversight of social media corps, the experiments they're running on us, and the impact of their policies. A “board” looking into whether particular content should be “allowed” or not feels like clever misdirection. https:…
Twitter is targeting the President of the United States 24/7, while turning their heads to protest organizers who are planning, plotting, and communicating their next moves daily on this very platform. Twitter is full of shit - more and more people are beginning to get it. https:…
The President did not glorify violence. He clearly condemned it. @Jack and Twitter's biased, bad-faith “fact-checkers” have made it clear: Twitter is a publisher, not a platform. https://twitter.com/...
Twitter, in an email to the White House moments ago, admitted that the very tweet they are censoring does not violate any Twitter rules. So why are they still censoring it? https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...
Policies are worthless if they're not fairly, evenly, and transparently enforced. Kudos to Twitter for (belatedly) doing the right thing, and shame on Facebook for repeatedly choosing to enable misinformation, hate speech and incitement to violence when politically convenient htt…
To be clear, Twitter declined to comment directly on the Khamenei tweets, aside from providing that context—which implies that the company also did not rule out taking action on them.
I asked Twitter for comment on these Khamenei tweets that Trump's FCC chair suddenly seems to care about. A spokesman directed me to guidelines that say “foreign policy saber-rattling on economic or military issues” generally does not violate its rules on “glorifying violence.” h…
Fact check this @Twitter: As a @twitter stockholder, I am dumping my shares today. Rationale: New fact check policy opens #Twitter up to countless lawsuits over erroneous fact-checking and for biased fact-checking. What a can of worms @Jack is opening.. #SellingTwitterStock https…
And here is the White House official account now with the same tweet labeled serving a notice from Twitter. It's hard to believe Twitter isn't on strong legal ground to do this. That said, the other tech platforms should be supporting Twitter in this right. https://twitter.com/..…
interesting. not sure our agency commissioners should be diving in real-time. I believe this FCC tweet, shared by White House no less, muddies situation especially w Griffin comparison. Her tweet was removed, IOW Twitter took action. The remaining tweet is a news report about it.…
You might ask if this really is the time to cheap shot the mayor of a shaken city & threaten more violence? It is if your MO is to inflame and exploit any crisis for your own perceived political advantage. You see tragedy. He sees opportunity. https://twitter.com/...
Apart from the profanity, why is a White House advisor criticizing a technology platform for allowing protestors to organize? That seems to fall under freedom of assembly. https://twitter.com/...
In sharp contrast, here is how same statement currently looks on Facebook and Instagram. Facebook's CEO went out strong yesterday across tv news claiming to differentiate his company in support of free speech. That's misleading as to what happens when adding a label. https://twit…
Twitter has finally done the bare minimum after years of condoning these types of tweets. Wild to see Twitter do this while Mark Zuckerberg is saying Facebook shouldn't have to do anything at all. https://www.theguardian.com/ ...