9 ms·
The Making of Facebook’s Supreme Court
- pmontra 6y agoSo a private court instead of a jury of peers. Furthermore it will rule on a handful of cases because they can't oversee every single ban. A PR stunt?
- TulliusCicero 6y ago> So a private court instead of a jury of peers. Furthermore it will rule on a handful of cases because they can't oversee every single ban. So, like the real Supreme Court then?
- ilikepi 6y agoThe latest episode of Radiolab also discusses the origins of the panel. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/facebooks-supreme-court https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/faceb...
- dredmorbius 6y agoDirect audio: https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/radiolab_podcast/radiolab_podcast21facebookssupremecourt.mp3 https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/radi...
- TeeMassive 6y agoGiven the Time's article citing tech CEOs using their power to form a "cabal" to influence elections, I say it's time to jump out of the ship even if the waters are cold and empty. If you think this will stop at Trump and Republican I'd like to point out to Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard campaigns in addition to the recent WallStreetBets events.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago> The company has created a board that can overrule even Mark Zuckerberg. That is a nice fiction. Mark Zuckerberg has the majority of Facebook voting shares. Although it is a public company, it is personally run my Zuckerberg. If there is ever a real clash between the board and Zuckerberg, I would totally bet on Zuckerberg.
- spoonjim 6y agoYes, Zuckerberg can dismantle the oversight board using the same mechanisms that he used to construct it.
- eatingCake 6y agoYes, this is very much a "dad's in charge, mom said so" moment.
- nexthash 6y ago> Zuckerberg said he had come to believe that a C.E.O. shouldn’t have complete control over the limits of our political discourse. “Maybe there are some calls that just aren’t good for the company to make by itself,” he told me. Yet another PR move on Zuckerberg's part, he is still 100% holding onto his power at Facebook. Facebook simply cannot change, because the incentives for running that kind of service don't align with instituting actual good moderation on the site. I doubt anybody is under the illusion that this so-called "oversight board" will have any impact on disinformation spread and arbitrary removals, or do anything serious in terms of policy due to the impact that would have on Zuckerberg's position. I feel like it is more of a sockpuppet created to keep as much of the blame away from Zuckerberg and his company while attempting to defuse the risk of actually meaningful regulatory protections against disinformation. As long as there is an incentive model where advertisers pay for attention and Facebook delivers it through outrage, nothing will change.
- Angostura 6y ago> Zuckerberg's part, he is still 100% holding onto his power at Facebook. Facebook simply cannot change, because the incentives for running that kind of service don't align with instituting actual good moderation on the site. So perhaps he doesn’t hold 100% of the power- you seem to be arguing that even he couldn’t change Facebook .
- JKCalhoun 6y agoI interpreted OP's comment to mean Zuckerberg could change Facebook but that then Facebook would wither and die.
- noooooooo 6y agoI agree that Zuckerberg doesn't have the best incentives, but his incentives are still infinitely better than those of any government because Facebook's status is built on consent rather than coercion. Decentralized and permissionless networks would be the best solution, but failing that, I'm happy to see the incumbents experimenting with different things that may improve the situation somewhat. Regulation and other forms of coercion is not a solution. Any "meaningful regulatory protections against disinformation" will no doubt become mandatory disinformation and protections against accurate information instead. Taking into consideration their past actions and terrible incentives, government officials are the last people I would trust to determine what is true or what should be published.
- instaheat 6y agoThis is a joke, right? There is no law that gives them any sort of power. This is like a PTA meeting.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chrisseaton 6y agoYou don’t need a law to have power. Just people who agreed to be bound by your agreements.
- TulliusCicero 6y agoI think they're talking more about the title: "Supreme Court".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gremlinsinc 6y agoThis would be more important and trustworthy if it had teeth and backing by multiple governments (say the USA, Canada, United Nations, EU), maybe each government could elect a member to sit on the board or maybe 3 members from the left, center, and right of their political spectrums. Most importantly it needs to be more than "just facebook" but something that just governs social media in general. Social media basically controls governments now, and may even have more power than government in many ways. So a coalition between the governments and social media may be the best way forward, but it needs to be as much content providers as possible.
- nickff 6y agoHow many members of the board are going to be from authoritarian regimes? I seems likely that this ends up more like the UN's committee on human rights (which frequently contains or is lead by representatives of horrific regimes) than NATO.
- codetrotter 6y agoIn the case of human rights though, those countries are the ones that need it the most. Even if it has as much as a tiny positive effect on the human rights of the people of those countries, that’s a win. What good would a committee on human rights be if they did not concern themselves with the ones that need it the most?
- ultrablack 6y agoI disagree. HR council is a lost opportunity. The countries on it are the worst offenders, only there to ensure nothing happens. Couldnt have been worse.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> The countries on it are the worst offenders The HRC is about 1/4 the size of the UN itself in seats, and countries are elected to by regional allocation in staggered 3-year terms for a maximum of two consecutive terms. “The worst offenders” is not a fair description of the current membership [0], or even a dominant faction of the membership, of the Council. There’ve been a couple times in history where the 15 or so countries elected in a single year have included several notably bad actors, and where people have mistaken that group for the whole council rather than about 1/3 of it, but that;s not reality. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/CurrentMembers.aspx https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/CurrentMembers.a...
- qPM9l3XJrF 6y ago>Sophisticated questions about “automatic tools for takedowns” and the “equity principle with diverse communities” were soon overtaken by a joke about “Game of Thrones.” Posts were initially anonymous, but users quickly found a way around the system; “Harold” wrote, “I figured out how to identify self,” which provoked laughter. The moderator shouted to regain control of the room. In the midst of the chaos, someone posted, “Can we abandon Slido and talk?,” which quickly accumulated likes. This passage made me appreciate the culture of decorum that has evolved around our court system. My inclination would be to disband that group and keep retrying until you can find a group that takes their duties seriously.
- hertzrat 6y agoIt’s called an Oversight Board. Calling it a Supreme Court is silly
- nainarb 6y agoClickbait articles
- sandworm101 6y agoAlthough only silly in the context of the US legal system. In other countries, and NY State, a "supreme" court doesn't necessarily doesn't the top court. normally a "supreme" court is a court of general jurisdiction, as opposed to lesser family courts or dedicated criminal courts. The top court is then some variation on "court of appeals".
- im3w1l 6y agoI would assume the reason for this is to provide thought out and consistent decisions for high profile cases.
- dessant 6y agoWe keep reporting antivax 5G content on Facebook and the posts stay up. Same goes for entire groups dedicated to discouraging people from getting vaccinated through a constant stream of false information. This cancer of a service is destroying the minds of everyone around me.
- vmskLa 6y agoI kept reporting Fauci's original statement that masks don't work. The reports were flagged. Why bother about obvious nonsense like 5G conspiracies? It is the mainstream lies from both media and politicians that are report-worthy.
- dessant 6y agoBoth obvious nonsense and nuanced misinformation can be harmful, they are just targeting different audiences. Not sure why one has to pick and choose, you can report any content you deem harmful.
- throwaway3699 6y agoThe people around you need to apply critical thinking skills and stop believing anything on Facebook is real. We used to treat newspapers with the same suspicion, what changed? Facebook cannot be blamed, only society at large.
- astura 6y ago>We used to treat newspapers with the same suspicion We did? When was this?
- throwaway3699 6y agoWhen I grew up, it was well known that most newspapers were propaganda rags. People bought them anyway but generally as entertainment.
- dessant 6y ago
- zaptheimpaler 6y agoLots of the customary knee jerk HN cynicism here but meh.. Have you seen how worn out Zuckerberg has become over the years? Do you think being held responsible by every political side for every ill in society is fun for the guy? I don't think it's a position anyone would envy. This board is a step in allowing him to not be hold responsible for every fucked up thing that 5 billion people and bots and nation states post on Facebook. I completely believe it's genuine. Its ridiculous that the narrative has shifted so much to blaming social networks. Social networks reflect society. Society is fucked up. It's not a problem any amount of AI or moderators or technology will fix.
- khawkins 6y ago"Won't someone please think of the billionaires?" Zuckerberg made his money off of building social networks. He's welcome to retire and divest, but otherwise it's his ethical responsibly to guide their development for the public good. He's going to get flak from every side, but it's his job to pick a side and go through with it, whether it's doing nothing, reforming, or even strangling the app.
- zaptheimpaler 6y agoSocial media is a platform. It's like holding Tim Berners Lee responsible for the entirety of the internet. At some point, the invention is far bigger than the person. You are talking about making 1 person responsible for the fate of the entire world. It's simply not realistic. I don't care if he's a billionaire or not, it doesn't make him a omniscient omnipotent god. he's just a person not some abstract representation of wealth inequality and everything wrong with the world. Anyways, my point was that I do believe the board will be independent of Zuckerbergs oversight because he doesn't want it.
- khawkins 6y agoI think you're overstating how people generally feel about Zuckerberg's influence. He clearly has the most power to wield, but I think most understand the nuance that he's limited by tons of competing interests. I think that part of the problem is that he's trying to appease people who will never be satisfied, who want to control speech and eliminate wrongthink. In doing so, he's creating enemies out of people who don't ask for much, just that the banhammer not be wielded so liberally.
- khawkins 6y ago>The dangers of this approach soon became apparent. Facebook now has some three billion users—more than a third of humanity—many of whom get their news from the site. In 2016, Russian agents used the platform in an attempt to sway the U.S. Presidential election. Three years later, a white supremacist in New Zealand live-streamed a mass shooting. Millions of people joined groups and followed pages related to QAnon, a conspiracy theory holding that the world is controlled by a cabal of Satan-worshipping, pedophilic Democrats. The First Amendment has made it difficult for the U.S. government to stop toxic ideas from spreading online. The idea that these things can be stopped by censoring "toxic ideas" is the false premise that both the New Yorker and Facebook state as their primary justification for expanding their power. They miss the point of the 1st amendment entirely, and hint at it being an inconvenience to progress instead of a cherished human right. They act like the demands of censors to remove speech deserve equal consideration to those who want their speech rights preserved. But the idea that free speech is a human right doesn't mean we stop at first ammendment protections from government censorship, it should be extended in sentiment to any position of power. The idea that either the author or the company is treating the censorship of a world leader supported by over 70 million people as something that should be debated by "high-minded" people suggests that they have already abandoned the concept of free speech as a human right. Free speech is important in part because, to the contrary, it cools extremism. When elites stamp out speech, they don't eliminate the ideas, they make those individuals more desperate and disillusioned with society. They hamper the abilities of like-minded communities to deescalate radicalism. They remove the ability of radicals to vent, where they can feel like they're making a difference with words instead of violence. It's deeply disturbing to see that the people living in New York and California, especially those in power, seem to have less of an appreciation for the principle of free speech than those abroad. I think the time where America was a world bastion for free speech is over. Only thing in their way is that pesky 1st amendment.
- throwaway3699 6y agoMy country arrests and charges people for making offensive tweets. If America abandons free speech, then where is left to go?
- pjkundert 6y ago
- wheybags 6y ago> During one meeting, they used pens, topped with a feather, to evoke the quills used by the Founding Fathers. Such delusions of grandeur...
- Balgair 6y agoSo strange. Not actual turkey quills and ink wells, not kid vellum or parchment, rather just regular old pens with feathers on the top and paper. Like, they very easily could have gone all the way, FB more than has the cash to spend on the authentics. Look at any signing ceremony in DC, each document gets it's own pen to save and parcel out. But FB only went half way, and made it all even more of a parody because of that. Like, my dudes, it isn't 2012 anymore, the internet isn't a fun place where things don't really 'count', the fratty dorm-room pastiche don't fly.
- tanylak 6y agoMaybe the question we should all be asking is why do we need to have just Facebook or just Twitter or just Youtube? Maybe it's time review the landscape and realize that where a mountain range used to be, there is now a deep valley with a lonely mountain blocking our sun.
- krapp 6y agoWe don't have just Facebook or just Twitter or just Youtube. There are tons of social media platforms on the internet - those are simply the most popular. The younger generations don't even use Facebook, they consider it a boomer platform.
- notacoward 6y ago> why do we need to have just Facebook or just Twitter or just Youtube? We don't, but that's the way network effects work. They create a high barrier to entry, with no obvious remedy short of dictating which social networks people can use.
- throwaway122378 6y agoAny new social networks that pick up are labeled right wing and subsequently banned
- fatsdomino001 6y agoIt's astonishing to me that people are actually calling for censoring all social media... like honestly, do you not see any of the good that social media does? E.g. Youtube democratized people's voices. Social media is a great equilizer and great contributor to the democratization of society writ large.
- throwaway316943 6y agoThere is so much wrong here I don’t even know where to begin but I think this has really solidified my opinion that the only way to prevent Facebook from doing more harm would be to completely dissolve the company and shut down the platform. If the reporting in this article is accurate, all of their attempts at governance have been half baked schemes mixed with a heavy dollop of LARPing. There is no way that this process will produce anything other than a Potemkin village to please any officials that care to look or worse yet a star chamber filled with self serving and unelected authorities. What interest do any of these hired experts have other than a fat paycheque? The laws they draft and the decisions they make will have no immediate impact on their lives but could potentially reshape the lives of millions who are heavily embedded in the web that Facebook has spun. The only thing they’ve done right is to limit its power for now but they should limit it right out of existence.
- datavirtue 6y agoGot bored reading this because I have seen user moderation work very well. Facebook cannot let its own users moderae, and so you have all this drama that amounts to, as some involved with the process have noted, a joke.
- throwaway122378 6y agoElected officials should be making laws that govern this
- Nimitz14 6y agoSorry for OT but man I love the New Yorker. Best subscription I've ever payed for.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- engineer_22 6y agoNationalize Facebook!