Meta: The supervisory board criticizes the favorable treatment of personalities on Facebook and Instagram

“The board is concerned about how Meta has put its financial interests ahead of content moderation”the qualified body said it was independent, but funded by the company.

In his report, he calls for a “significant review” of the double-checking program called “cross-checking”, to make it more transparent, more responsive and fairer.

Currently, when posts or images that potentially violate Facebook or Instagram policies are reported, they are promptly removed if deemed high-risk and from unknown users.

But if their author is “whitelisted,” this content remains online while it’s being scrutinized more closely, a process that usually takes several days and sometimes several months.

Double speed

This double-speed system, “unfair”, therefore “offered further protection to the expression of some users, also selected on the basis of Meta’s economic interests”, the report specifies.

Due to the “cross-checking”, “content identified as contrary to Meta rules remains visible on Facebook and Instagram, while spreading virally and could cause harm”, warns the supervisory board.

It recommends speeding up secondary reviews of content by personalities who may be posting important human rights messages and removing high-risk content pending a domestic verdict.

It also asks the company to publish eligibility criteria to benefit from the program and to publicly identify the accounts of affected users on the platforms.

The entity is made up of 20 international members, journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders and former political leaders. It was born in 2020 on the proposal of the boss Mark Zuckerberg and is responsible for evaluating the content moderation policy of the Californian group.

Members launched a “cross-checking” review in October 2021, following revelations by whistleblower Frances Haugen, who leaked internal documents to the press and accused the company of putting “profits before safety” of its users.

Meta’s responses to the survey were “at times insufficient” and “its understanding of the practical implications of the program leaves something to be desired,” the board said.