The Oversight Board will weigh in on Meta’s new hate speech policies
Less than two weeks before Donald Trump’s inauguration, Meta announced sweeping changes to its content moderation procedures, reportedly at the behest of Mark Zuckerberg and a small group of advisors. Among those caught off guard was the company’s own Oversight Board, the independent organization created by Meta to help shape its most sensitive policy decisions. The group is now looking to examine those changes, and in doing so, will test the enforceability of its own powers.<br /> The changes Meta has enacted drastically reshape how the company polices content across Facebook, Instagram and Threads. It ended its fact-checking program in the US, and rolled back hate speech rules that protected immigrants and LGBTQ users on its apps. Unlike its previously proactive approach, it also reoriented its content moderation procedures so that many types of rule-breaking posts will only be removed if other users reported them.<br /> The changes have raised questions about the role of the Oversight Board, which was created, Zuckerberg once said, because “Facebook should not make so many important decisions about free expression and safety on our own.” If that’s what Meta is now doing, critics have asked, what exactly is the point of an ostensibly independent Oversight Board?<br /> But the Oversight Board is already working to address Meta’s rewritten “hateful conduct” policy, according to board member Paolo Carozza, who spoke to Engadget. When Zuckerberg announced the changes in early January, the board already had four open cases involving Meta’s hate speech rules. The board now plans to use those cases to examine the new policies, which were rewritten to allow people to use dehumanizing language to describe immigrants and accuse LGBTQ people of being mentally ill.<br /> “We deliberately delayed the decision of those cases after January 7, precisely so that we could go back to Meta again and ask a new round of questions,” Carozza, a law professor at Notre Dame who joined the Oversight Board in 2022, told Engadget. “We're trying as much as possible to use the tools that we have to find out more information, bring more transparency and more certainty to how it's going to play out in practice.”<br /> The board, according to Carozza, has already had briefings with Meta as it pushes for more details about the new hate speech policies. But it could still be some time before its findings are made public. The open cases deal with several aspects of Meta’s hate speech rules, including immigration, gender identity, hateful symbols and incitement of violence.<br /> In addition to the questions surrounding each case, Carozza said that the board is also grappling with how to prioritize the case decisions given the renewed importance of the underlying policies. “There are competing concerns about being quick and efficient versus being more thoughtful and deliberative,” he said.<br /> But while the board may hope to provide more transparency about Meta’s decision-making, it’s unclear how much influence the board will ultimately end up having. Under its rules, Meta is only required to comply with the group’s decisions surrounding individual posts. The board’s policy recommendations are non-binding and Meta has a mixed track record at implementing its suggestions.<br /> It’s also unclear how the board might be able to weigh in on Meta’s other changes, like the shuttering of fact-checking programs or shift away from proactive content moderation. “We were quite critical of the fact checking program in general, but our ordinary cases make it a little bit hard to get at that problem because it doesn't come up through an appeals process within the scope of the kinds of cases that we get,” Carozza says. The board, he notes, could write a policy advisory opinion as it has with rules around COVID-19 misinformation and Meta’s cross-check rules for celebrities. But the board is only empowered to make those kinds of non-binding recommendations at Meta's request.<br /> That gets at one of the fundamental tensions of the Oversight Board: it may operate independently, but Meta ultimately dictates how much influence it can wield. “It would be unrealistic to expect that the standard for value and success of the board is that Meta, 100% of the time, does everything we ever tell them to do,” Carozza says, “We’re one piece of a complicated jigsaw puzzle of accountability and oversight.”<br /> Still, the fact that the group wasn’t consulted on such major policy moves has raised some uncomfortable questions for the board. Dozens of civil society groups recently signed an open letter urging board members to resign in protest. In a letter to Zuckerberg, some members of Congress said the board “is rendered toothless” when Meta refuses to follow its own principles.<br /> Carozzo acknowledges the Oversight Board’s limitations, but says that the billions of people on Meta’s apps are ultimately better off with the board intervening where it can. “If everybody were to resign en masse … the only people who would lose are Meta’s end users, especially those who are in especially vulnerable situations [and] communities around the world.”This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/the-oversight-board-will-weigh-in-on-metas-new-hate-speech-policies-174044682.html?src=rss