Oversight Board Agrees To Review Facebook's Trump Suspension

from the shit-just-got-real dept

On Thursday morning, the Oversight Board (you're apparently not supposed to call it the "Facebook Oversight Board" since it's -- theoretically -- independent) announced that it had agreed to review Facebook's decision to indefinitely suspend former President Donald Trump.

Today the Oversight Board accepted a case referral from Facebook to examine their decision to indefinitely suspend former US President Donald Trump’s access to post content on Facebook and Instagram. Facebook has also requested policy recommendations from the Board on suspensions when the user is a political leader.

Facebook’s decision to suspend Mr. Trump’s access to post on Facebook and Instagram on January 7, 2021, has driven intense global interest. The Oversight Board has been closely following events in the United States and Facebook’s response to them, and the Board is ready to provide a thorough and independent assessment of the company’s decision.

I'll note that this actually surprises me. When the Oversight Board was first announced, it was said that, at least initially, the Board would focus on individual content decisions, rather than on full account bans. But... apparently that changed. It's also interesting that Facebook has asked the Board for policy recommendations. If I remember correctly, Facebook can request such input, but that input is not binding on the company, which has made many skeptical of its value.

Still, this strikes me as an important moment for the Oversight Board. This will obviously be followed very closely. While I share the skepticism of many that the Oversight Board will be that useful in the long run, I do think it's a worthwhile experiment, and something that is worth watching and seeing how it plays out over time. This, obviously, will be its most high profile and important decision to date.

The Board really only got up and running in late October, and didn't announce its first cases until December. And, obviously, none of those were nearly as high profile or consequential as this question regarding former President Trump and his account.

Of course, that also makes this... a tricky issue. People have lots of opinions on the decision to suspend Trump, and many, many, many people are completely sure that their view (either for or against the suspension) is the only correct view. They are also quite sure that anyone who believes the opposite view is bad/corrupt/evil/biased/etc. Personally, I think the issue involves a lot of nuance, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides, especially if you taken into account the larger context.

Unfortunately, though, because people are so sure about what they think the result will be, it likely means that for a significant portion of people, no matter what the Oversight Board comes back with, it will be seen as illegitimate. If the Board agrees with Facebook's decision to suspend, people will argue (falsely) that the Oversight Board is just there to rubber stamp and whitewash Facebook's decisions. If the Board says the decision was a mistake, it will be seen by those who disagree as proof that Facebook never really wanted to ban Trump in the first place, and the move was just to give them political cover.

Like so much in the content moderation world, all of this puts those making these calls in a no win situation. But... at least from an outsider perspective, it should be fascinating to watch what happens and to understand the results. And, personally, as someone who spends way too much time thinking about the trade-offs and consequences of content moderation decisions, I hope to learn something from whatever the Board decides, whether or not I agree with their eventual recommendations and decision.

Filed Under: content moderation, donald trump, oversight board
Companies: facebook