7 ms·

"One department of the megacorp confirms a decision made by the other department" big news

by puszczyk 5y ago

pjpuppy 5y ago
The board is made up of outside experts. They're independent of fartbook.
- 0xy 5y ago
  That's just totally false, the Oversight Board was created, funded and structured by Facebook and therefore does not meet the definition of independent. It's about as "independent" as DoubleClick is of Google.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    21st Century Fox was created, funded, and structured by News Corp. Are they still controlled by News Corp now and forever as a result? A $130M irrevocable trust to ensure their operations seems like a decent stab at ensuring they're not beholden to Facebook.
    - 0xy 5y ago
      Facebook appointed every member of the board and directly funded it. Would you trust the BP Oversight Board, staffed 100% by people selected by BP, to police BP's emissions? Independent means independent.
    - dbcurtis 5y ago
      > Intel was created, funded, and structured by Fairchild Semiconductor. Are they still controlled by Fairchild Wut? Read up on the “Traitorous Eight”.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        You're right, my bad. I was looking for corporate spin-off examples and grabbed a bad one. Updated with a better one.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jaywalk 5y ago
  Yeah I'm sure Facebook picked a bunch of people who didn't align with their ideals.
- eplanit 5y ago
  Who pays them, directly and indirectly?
  - ZeroCool2u 5y ago
    From what I understand, the foundation is funded by Facebook directly, but it's unclear what kind of obligations are legally/contractually required by that funding. Of course FB can always pull funding completely, but that would be a bit blatant.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > Of course FB can always pull funding completely... They can't, though. It's an irrevocable trust; the Oversight Board would have to agree to terminate it.
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      What sources did you use to inform this view?
      - mtmail 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook)#Governance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook)#Gov... has details on the funding. $130m, expected to last 50 years.
        username90 5y ago
        > $130m, expected to last 50 years. I read: > Facebook established an irrevocable trust with $130 million in initial funding, expected to cover operational costs for over half a decade Half a decade is 5 years, not 50.
      - ZeroCool2u 5y ago
        A WSJ article I read, but the wiki page is almost certainly a better source.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Pretty stacked deck of certain types. Having experts independent of facebook only works if you provide a fair diversity. If everyone drinks the same cool-aid the process for selecting these experts becomes the overriding issue. How were these people selected? Do we have a matrix on their ideology? Is that an acceptable balance? https://oversightboard.com/meet-the-board/ https://oversightboard.com/meet-the-board/
threatofrain 5y ago
The board is full of law professors, human rights activists, and even one former PM, and their funding is irrevocable. I would give them time to see if their reputations generalize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook)#Members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook)#Mem...
- YinglingLight 5y ago
  There is only one thing more dangerous than not trusting the Experts.
- puszczyk 5y ago
  Thanks for responding to my cynic take. Maybe indeed they deserve some credit for the decision and the benefit of the doubt for now.
- COGlory 5y ago
  ...picked by Facebook...
  - GavinMcG 5y ago
    Ok but they've got the former Prime Minister of Denmark next to the Vice President of the CATO Institute. Get a handle on the knee-jerk skepticism and cynicism and look into it yourself and make a principled argument for whether it's satisfactory or not. Just spitting out your first reaction isn't helpful.
    - freewilly1040 5y ago
      Why on earth should Facebook get the benefit of the doubt here? They’ve assembled some gaudy resumes, ok. Is there any historical track record for a board like this providing a meaningful check on a monopoly? On a company majority controlled by one person? Give me a break. This is Zuckerberg making a show at self regulation to try and forestall real regulators coming after him. Happy to be proven wrong, but Facebook has not earned trust here.
matwood 5y ago
I'm completely surprised actually. The bigger news is that they didn't let him back on because he's worth so much money to the social media companies. The oversight board is supposed to be independent, and we know how that goes. It was assumed it would do what's best for FB financially, which is let Trump back on.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  " I'm completely surprised actually. The bigger news is that they didn't let him back on because he's worth so much money to the social media companies." Facebook doesn't need Trump. They're going to be making billions regardless. They also have to deal with the current US government, where Trump and his supporters' fortunes are on the wane, and a lot of powerful people (of whom Trump has made enemies) are questioning Facebook and other social media platforms for giving Trump a megaphone. Of course, there are also Trump supporters who want the opposite, but politically they just don't matter as much right now. In the current political climate, the surprise would have been their letting him back on.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

"One department of the megacorp confirms a decision made by the other department" big news

pjpuppy 5y ago

The board is made up of outside experts. They're independent of fartbook.

0xy 5y ago
That's just totally false, the Oversight Board was created, funded and structured by Facebook and therefore does not meet the definition of independent. It's about as "independent" as DoubleClick is of Google.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  21st Century Fox was created, funded, and structured by News Corp. Are they still controlled by News Corp now and forever as a result? A $130M irrevocable trust to ensure their operations seems like a decent stab at ensuring they're not beholden to Facebook.
  - 0xy 5y ago
    Facebook appointed every member of the board and directly funded it. Would you trust the BP Oversight Board, staffed 100% by people selected by BP, to police BP's emissions? Independent means independent.
  - dbcurtis 5y ago
    > Intel was created, funded, and structured by Fairchild Semiconductor. Are they still controlled by Fairchild Wut? Read up on the “Traitorous Eight”.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      You're right, my bad. I was looking for corporate spin-off examples and grabbed a bad one. Updated with a better one.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jaywalk 5y ago
Yeah I'm sure Facebook picked a bunch of people who didn't align with their ideals.
eplanit 5y ago
Who pays them, directly and indirectly?
- ZeroCool2u 5y ago
  From what I understand, the foundation is funded by Facebook directly, but it's unclear what kind of obligations are legally/contractually required by that funding. Of course FB can always pull funding completely, but that would be a bit blatant.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > Of course FB can always pull funding completely... They can't, though. It's an irrevocable trust; the Oversight Board would have to agree to terminate it.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    What sources did you use to inform this view?
    - mtmail 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook)#Governance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook)#Gov... has details on the funding. $130m, expected to last 50 years.
      - username90 5y ago
        > $130m, expected to last 50 years. I read: > Facebook established an irrevocable trust with $130 million in initial funding, expected to cover operational costs for over half a decade Half a decade is 5 years, not 50.
    - ZeroCool2u 5y ago
      A WSJ article I read, but the wiki page is almost certainly a better source.
ipaddr 5y ago
Pretty stacked deck of certain types. Having experts independent of facebook only works if you provide a fair diversity. If everyone drinks the same cool-aid the process for selecting these experts becomes the overriding issue. How were these people selected? Do we have a matrix on their ideology? Is that an acceptable balance? https://oversightboard.com/meet-the-board/ https://oversightboard.com/meet-the-board/

threatofrain 5y ago

The board is full of law professors, human rights activists, and even one former PM, and their funding is irrevocable. I would give them time to see if their reputations generalize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook)#Members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook)#Mem...

YinglingLight 5y ago
There is only one thing more dangerous than not trusting the Experts.
puszczyk 5y ago
Thanks for responding to my cynic take. Maybe indeed they deserve some credit for the decision and the benefit of the doubt for now.
COGlory 5y ago
...picked by Facebook...
- GavinMcG 5y ago
  Ok but they've got the former Prime Minister of Denmark next to the Vice President of the CATO Institute. Get a handle on the knee-jerk skepticism and cynicism and look into it yourself and make a principled argument for whether it's satisfactory or not. Just spitting out your first reaction isn't helpful.
  - freewilly1040 5y ago
    Why on earth should Facebook get the benefit of the doubt here? They’ve assembled some gaudy resumes, ok. Is there any historical track record for a board like this providing a meaningful check on a monopoly? On a company majority controlled by one person? Give me a break. This is Zuckerberg making a show at self regulation to try and forestall real regulators coming after him. Happy to be proven wrong, but Facebook has not earned trust here.

matwood 5y ago

I'm completely surprised actually. The bigger news is that they didn't let him back on because he's worth so much money to the social media companies. The oversight board is supposed to be independent, and we know how that goes. It was assumed it would do what's best for FB financially, which is let Trump back on.

pmoriarty 5y ago
" I'm completely surprised actually. The bigger news is that they didn't let him back on because he's worth so much money to the social media companies." Facebook doesn't need Trump. They're going to be making billions regardless. They also have to deal with the current US government, where Trump and his supporters' fortunes are on the wane, and a lot of powerful people (of whom Trump has made enemies) are questioning Facebook and other social media platforms for giving Trump a megaphone. Of course, there are also Trump supporters who want the opposite, but politically they just don't matter as much right now. In the current political climate, the surprise would have been their letting him back on.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]