Published on : 14/04/2021 – 03:12
–
San Francisco (AFP)
Facebook’s supervisory board, which will soon decide whether Donald Trump can return to the platform or not, has extended its powers of content moderation, a sign that the California group sees this independent committee as the solution to these editorial dilemmas.
The “supreme” body of the social media giant, which examines and adjudicates disputed decisions to remove content from Facebook or Instagram, will now also look into the publications left online despite reports, according to press releases on Tuesday .
“Allowing users to appeal content they want to be removed from Facebook is a significant extension of the supervisory board’s capabilities,” said Thomas Hughes, director of the board.
“The council was created to ensure that Facebook makes fewer decisions on its own on very important content matters, and that better decisions can be made through an independent and transparent process that works to protect human rights and freedom of expression, “said the official.
The board, which took office last year, made its first decisions in January, binding on Facebook.
The most anticipated must fall by the end of the week: it concerns former US President Donald Trump, banned from Facebook (and other social networks) after the January 6 riots on Capitol Hill.
– Average –
The Republican billionaire has been criticized for his repeated, unfounded allegations of electoral fraud, and his words of encouragement to his hundreds of supporters who violently rushed into the seat of the US Parliament.
In the United States, digital ostracization has been widely hailed as regrettable but necessary by civil society and many elected officials. But in Europe it has also drawn criticism from associations and leaders, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, worried about the power of technology companies over freedom of expression.
Accused for years of censoring certain voices or, on the contrary, of promoting disinformation, harassment and the activities of violent groups, Facebook ended up creating this supervisory board made up of around twenty international and independent members, who are professors, lawyers. , journalists or human rights defenders.
“We are pleased that the supervisory board is expanding its scope and impact,” assured Guy Rosen, vice-president in charge of the group’s platform integrity.
But for some observers, the major role of this body shows that Facebook behaves more and more like a medium which must make editorial decisions, and not like a host which applies a regulation without political stakes.
The social network sets up a model with “advertising here, editorial there,” according to Emily Bell, professor at Columbia School of Journalism.
– Ring the bells –
“That’s what a news outlet does,” she explained on Twitter. The job of founder and boss Mark Zuckerberg and senior executives at the California firm “is to run a colossal advertising company. The supervisory board therefore becomes an editorial board by default.”
But given the size of the board – which has only made a handful of decisions and recommendations so far – Emily Bell and other observers doubt its ability to address substantive issues beyond iconic cases and publicized.
“Facebook knows that it cannot do moderation on a massive scale,” she concluded. “They will use humans (in addition to automated computer systems, editor’s note) to rule on cases where they have been publicly ringing the bells.”
“Given Facebook’s lack of transparency and consistency in its treatment of deceptive content, it is not clear how the expansion of the council’s scope of action will ensure that disinformation is systematically removed from the platform” , noted Jo Lukito, a professor at the University of Texas School of Journalism.
The body issued a ruling on Tuesday on Facebook’s decision to remove a video posted by a user in the Netherlands, showing a young child facing adults with faces made up in black, disguised as “Zwarte Piet”, a character from the folklore of St. Nicholas, which provokes a cultural debate every year.
The supervisory board sided with the social network, with a majority of members noting “racist stereotypes” and judging that there was “enough evidence of harm to justify the withdrawal”.
© 2021 AFP
–
