7 ms·

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 re

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 6y ago
There is only one thing more dangerous than not trusting the Experts.
puszczyk 6y 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 6y ago
...picked by Facebook...
- GavinMcG 6y 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 6y 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.
    - GavinMcG 6y ago
      It's not about anyone getting the benefit of the doubt. It's about whether there's substantive discussion here or just cynical riffs and dismissals.
  - COGlory 6y ago
    Are you implying that having a politician on their board lends them credibility?
    - GavinMcG 6y ago
      The whole point is that you can't just stick with a knee-jerk reaction like "OoH, a PoLiTiCiAn!" Use your actual brain. This particular politician was the prime minister of Denmark until 2015, and in 2015, Denmark was ranked third out of 180 countries on Reporters Without Borders' World Press Freedom Index. Another politician is Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who ordered the assassination of reporter Jamal Khashoggi. I do think Helle Thorning-Schmidt lends them some credibility, and not because she's "a politician."
freewilly1040 6y ago
Yes Facebook has done good work in reputation purchasing for their board. I’m sure they all mean well. But I’m going to assume the board is for show until they do determine something Zuckerberg doesn’t like, and it gets upheld.
- creaghpatr 6y ago
  To be fair, reputation purchasing describes plenty of boards of publicly traded companies.
bhupy 6y ago
What checks and balances exist on the board? What mechanism does the board have to ensure a sufficient diversity of ideologies? I've seen news outlets describe the Oversight Board as a "Supreme Court" of sorts. With the US Federal Judiciary, there's a mechanism by which judges are appointed by democratically elected bodies (setting aside the debate around how different elected bodies are composed). As a result, we have some modicum of ideological diversity in the Courts; you have originalists, "living Constitutionalists", and everything in between. The balance experiences shifts every few decades, but by and large it's remained a balanced body. If the Oversight Board really is a "Supreme Court", how can we trust that its composition will be made up of the right balance of perspectives? If the board members elect new board members, what happens if the board members become increasingly homogenous and create an endless negative feedback loop of self-selection[1]? [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/political-diversity-will-improve-social-psychological-science-1/A54AD4878AED1AFC8BA6AF54A890149F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain...
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  That the US Supreme Court has a "balance of perspectives" is pure fantasy.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    I'd encourage you to read my comment in full: over the long run, the balance has swayed, but it's never remained ideologically homogenous in perpetuity. Until 2017, the majority of the Supreme Court was "living Constitutionalist". Now the majority happens to be "Originalist". The only reason we see this ebb and flow over a 200+ time horizon is because there's a system in place to elect judges by the other 2 branches of government. In contrast, the Oversight Board appears to function like a hypothetical Supreme Court in which the sitting members appoint new members. Imagine, if the 2021 US Supreme Court did that, do you think that its ideological balance would ever shift? Imagine if the 1999 US Supreme Court (majority of the opposite ideology to today's) appointed new members. Do you think its ideological balance would look like the one it has today? If anything is "pure fantasy", it's the idea that the members of the Supreme Court are partisan ideologues as opposed to jurists that have truly fundamentally different ideas of how the judiciary ought to function, in good faith. It's exactly that kind of diversity of opinions that has resulted in the Supreme Court enjoying the highest approval rating of any institution in the Federal government: https://news.gallup.com/poll/316817/approval-supreme-court-highest-2009.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/316817/approval-supreme-court-h...
dominotw 6y ago
Just googled top two people on that page ( + trump ) . https://twitter.com/jamalgreene/status/1055797078868324353 https://twitter.com/jamalgreene/status/1055797078868324353 first person on that list seem to think trump is actually insane https://twitter.com/cboteromarino/status/896156640986054656 https://twitter.com/cboteromarino/status/896156640986054656 Yeah this ppl thought really hard and objectively about his decision to uphold the ban /s I assume rest of the people on that committee are ideologically biased. Silly dog and pony show by facebook.
- KaiserPro 6y ago
  > I assume rest of the people on that committee are ideologically biased. but you haven't actually checked have you? There is _actually_ a reasonable diversity of thought on that panel. For there to be a range of thought, there needs to exist people who's world outlook is different and or abhorrent to yours. thats how we represent diversity of thought.
  - dominotw 6y ago
    > but you haven't actually checked have you? There is _actually_ a reasonable diversity of thought on that panel. Sounds like you have. Curious, Do you have an example?
    - KaiserPro 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._McConnell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._McConnell is a constitutionalist. vaguely republican. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A1s_Saj%C3%B3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A1s_Saj%C3%B3 is a human rights judge. there is of course the ex editor of the guardian as well, who wouldn't be my first choice to have on board.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Sounds like you've done the research, and I'd genuinely love to learn more about the board. Do you have some specific examples of board members whose ideologies could be reasonably construed to be sympathetic to Trump (or at the very least, sympathetic to free speech absolutism)?
twobitshifter 6y ago
Reminds me of Iran >In theory, the Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts. However, all candidates for membership at the Assembly of Experts (including the President and the Majlis (parliament)) must have their candidacy approved by the Guardian Council, whose members in turn, are half appointed unilaterally by the Supreme Leader and half subject to confirmation by the Majlis after being appointed by the head of the Iranian judiciary, who is himself appointed by the Supreme Leader. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

YinglingLight 6y ago

There is only one thing more dangerous than not trusting the Experts.

puszczyk 6y 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 6y ago

...picked by Facebook...

GavinMcG 6y 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 6y 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.
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    It's not about anyone getting the benefit of the doubt. It's about whether there's substantive discussion here or just cynical riffs and dismissals.
- COGlory 6y ago
  Are you implying that having a politician on their board lends them credibility?
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    The whole point is that you can't just stick with a knee-jerk reaction like "OoH, a PoLiTiCiAn!" Use your actual brain. This particular politician was the prime minister of Denmark until 2015, and in 2015, Denmark was ranked third out of 180 countries on Reporters Without Borders' World Press Freedom Index. Another politician is Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who ordered the assassination of reporter Jamal Khashoggi. I do think Helle Thorning-Schmidt lends them some credibility, and not because she's "a politician."

freewilly1040 6y ago

Yes Facebook has done good work in reputation purchasing for their board. I’m sure they all mean well. But I’m going to assume the board is for show until they do determine something Zuckerberg doesn’t like, and it gets upheld.

creaghpatr 6y ago
To be fair, reputation purchasing describes plenty of boards of publicly traded companies.

bhupy 6y ago

What checks and balances exist on the board? What mechanism does the board have to ensure a sufficient diversity of ideologies? I've seen news outlets describe the Oversight Board as a "Supreme Court" of sorts. With the US Federal Judiciary, there's a mechanism by which judges are appointed by democratically elected bodies (setting aside the debate around how different elected bodies are composed). As a result, we have some modicum of ideological diversity in the Courts; you have originalists, "living Constitutionalists", and everything in between. The balance experiences shifts every few decades, but by and large it's remained a balanced body. If the Oversight Board really is a "Supreme Court", how can we trust that its composition will be made up of the right balance of perspectives? If the board members elect new board members, what happens if the board members become increasingly homogenous and create an endless negative feedback loop of self-selection[1]? [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/political-diversity-will-improve-social-psychological-science-1/A54AD4878AED1AFC8BA6AF54A890149F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain...

pmoriarty 6y ago
That the US Supreme Court has a "balance of perspectives" is pure fantasy.
- bhupy 6y ago
  I'd encourage you to read my comment in full: over the long run, the balance has swayed, but it's never remained ideologically homogenous in perpetuity. Until 2017, the majority of the Supreme Court was "living Constitutionalist". Now the majority happens to be "Originalist". The only reason we see this ebb and flow over a 200+ time horizon is because there's a system in place to elect judges by the other 2 branches of government. In contrast, the Oversight Board appears to function like a hypothetical Supreme Court in which the sitting members appoint new members. Imagine, if the 2021 US Supreme Court did that, do you think that its ideological balance would ever shift? Imagine if the 1999 US Supreme Court (majority of the opposite ideology to today's) appointed new members. Do you think its ideological balance would look like the one it has today? If anything is "pure fantasy", it's the idea that the members of the Supreme Court are partisan ideologues as opposed to jurists that have truly fundamentally different ideas of how the judiciary ought to function, in good faith. It's exactly that kind of diversity of opinions that has resulted in the Supreme Court enjoying the highest approval rating of any institution in the Federal government: https://news.gallup.com/poll/316817/approval-supreme-court-highest-2009.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/316817/approval-supreme-court-h...

dominotw 6y ago

Just googled top two people on that page ( + trump ) . https://twitter.com/jamalgreene/status/1055797078868324353 https://twitter.com/jamalgreene/status/1055797078868324353 first person on that list seem to think trump is actually insane https://twitter.com/cboteromarino/status/896156640986054656 https://twitter.com/cboteromarino/status/896156640986054656 Yeah this ppl thought really hard and objectively about his decision to uphold the ban /s I assume rest of the people on that committee are ideologically biased. Silly dog and pony show by facebook.

KaiserPro 6y ago
> I assume rest of the people on that committee are ideologically biased. but you haven't actually checked have you? There is _actually_ a reasonable diversity of thought on that panel. For there to be a range of thought, there needs to exist people who's world outlook is different and or abhorrent to yours. thats how we represent diversity of thought.
- dominotw 6y ago
  > but you haven't actually checked have you? There is _actually_ a reasonable diversity of thought on that panel. Sounds like you have. Curious, Do you have an example?
  - KaiserPro 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._McConnell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._McConnell is a constitutionalist. vaguely republican. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A1s_Saj%C3%B3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A1s_Saj%C3%B3 is a human rights judge. there is of course the ex editor of the guardian as well, who wouldn't be my first choice to have on board.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Sounds like you've done the research, and I'd genuinely love to learn more about the board. Do you have some specific examples of board members whose ideologies could be reasonably construed to be sympathetic to Trump (or at the very least, sympathetic to free speech absolutism)?

twobitshifter 6y ago

Reminds me of Iran >In theory, the Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts. However, all candidates for membership at the Assembly of Experts (including the President and the Majlis (parliament)) must have their candidacy approved by the Guardian Council, whose members in turn, are half appointed unilaterally by the Supreme Leader and half subject to confirmation by the Majlis after being appointed by the head of the Iranian judiciary, who is himself appointed by the Supreme Leader. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran