3 ms·

FB spending millions to create a 'Supreme Court' that can overrule Zuckerberg

Firerouge 6y ago
How is this supposed to work with a board of 20-40 esteemed individuals? Will they have to achieve consensus, supermajority, or majority votes to dictate anything to Facebook? What about simple content removal appeals, will a single judge rule on reinstating content? Are these independent appointed representatives paid to debate cases nonstop, or will they hold only a couple appeal cases a year, as volunteers?
- ckdarby 6y ago
  IRL Supreme Court seems to have figured this out. I'm guessing a similar model where you first appeal through the normal means and if that gets denied you'd have the ability to ask this board to review it. Board will only take on major cases.
OneGuy123 6y ago
Oxymoron: no comitee can overrule Zuckerberg since he holds the majority ownership. This is just PR. Zuckerberg is not bound by anything to actually execute the comitees decision.
- onetimemanytime 6y ago
  Maybe public pressure? If all turn against him, he will find out what control he really has
  - philpem 6y ago
    If he has a majority shareholding, one would assume he can just vote them out... or call for a vote to get rid of them and win by default?
    - onetimemanytime 6y ago
      and stock would crash, top people leave etc etc...
reureu 6y ago
Did we forget that the Supreme Court is a Supreme Court that can overrule Zuckerberg? This feels like another step towards the creation of a private, shadow legal system designed to give the impression that corporations can self-regulate. If we feel there are issues of justice at stake with these large social networks, maybe we should actually enact laws to regulate them. Then the public's courts can hold them accountable without the need for a pinky-promise by Zuckerberg to follow his advisory board's decisions.
IXxXI 6y ago
Banks don't want private sector innovators like Mark Zuckenberg threatening their banker monopoly with libra cryptocurrency.

How is this supposed to work with a board of 20-40 esteemed individuals? Will they have to achieve consensus, supermajority, or majority votes to dictate anything to Facebook? What about simple content removal appeals, will a single judge rule on reinstating content? Are these independent appointed representatives paid to debate cases nonstop, or will they hold only a couple appeal cases a year, as volunteers?

ckdarby 6y ago
IRL Supreme Court seems to have figured this out. I'm guessing a similar model where you first appeal through the normal means and if that gets denied you'd have the ability to ask this board to review it. Board will only take on major cases.

OneGuy123 6y ago

Oxymoron: no comitee can overrule Zuckerberg since he holds the majority ownership. This is just PR. Zuckerberg is not bound by anything to actually execute the comitees decision.

onetimemanytime 6y ago
Maybe public pressure? If all turn against him, he will find out what control he really has
- philpem 6y ago
  If he has a majority shareholding, one would assume he can just vote them out... or call for a vote to get rid of them and win by default?
  - onetimemanytime 6y ago
    and stock would crash, top people leave etc etc...

reureu 6y ago

Did we forget that the Supreme Court is a Supreme Court that can overrule Zuckerberg? This feels like another step towards the creation of a private, shadow legal system designed to give the impression that corporations can self-regulate. If we feel there are issues of justice at stake with these large social networks, maybe we should actually enact laws to regulate them. Then the public's courts can hold them accountable without the need for a pinky-promise by Zuckerberg to follow his advisory board's decisions.

IXxXI 6y ago

Banks don't want private sector innovators like Mark Zuckenberg threatening their banker monopoly with libra cryptocurrency.