4 ms·

> 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

> 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)?
- lovecg 6y ago
  https://oversightboard.com/meet-the-board/john-samples/ https://oversightboard.com/meet-the-board/john-samples/ for example
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > free speech absolutism In what way do you mean this? The classically conservative/libertarian/1a absolutist "people should be able to say whatever they want and the government cannot meddle", or the current republican "the government should regulate companies do to prevent them from criticizing the president" free speech absolutism?
  - bhupy 6y ago
    That's an odd dichotomy, because the overlap between those two groups is much larger than you might think. There's a common trope thrown around that "the first amendment only applies to the government"...which is obviously true and nobody credible actually believes otherwise. The debate at hand is about the principle of free speech. That is to say, the so called "current republican" argues that the same ideals that justify guaranteeing the freedom to express oneself in public, free from government persecution, ought to be applied with private companies that host the "public square". The First Amendment isn't relevant here, because obviously there's no law that prohibits a private company from censoring. The issue at hand is an ought question; i.e. should a purportedly open platform provided by a private company censor political speech? In theory, the same arguments one would make in defense of maintaining the First Amendment (in its current form) in our Constitution also applies in defense of advocating that a private company hosting a "public square" platform ought not to censor political speech. So circling back to the original question: we now have this Oversight Board which ostensibly has a diverse array of "experts" who we expect to weigh in on complex cases (a "Supreme Court" of sorts). The question is, how diverse is this board? Does it include anyone that might advocate what I laid out above? A couple other commenters provided examples (thanks!), but it's an important question that bears repeating. I'm also not sure how the system ensures that the pool of experts remains sufficiently diverse over time as members retire.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      You're making a mistake. The boards charter isn't to set facebooks policies, but to ensure that Facebook is enforcing them consistently. Facebooks policies aren't free speech absolutist in the second sense, so it doesn't much matter. Advocating for what you did above isn't on the charter because the board accepts that Facebook has moderation policies as a premise of ensuring that it follows those policies. To use a legal metaphor, fb policies are a constitution and the board is a supreme court. Facebook can amend it's constitution however it likes, and so there is no such thing as am unconstitutional law.

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)?

lovecg 6y ago
https://oversightboard.com/meet-the-board/john-samples/ https://oversightboard.com/meet-the-board/john-samples/ for example
joshuamorton 6y ago
> free speech absolutism In what way do you mean this? The classically conservative/libertarian/1a absolutist "people should be able to say whatever they want and the government cannot meddle", or the current republican "the government should regulate companies do to prevent them from criticizing the president" free speech absolutism?
- bhupy 6y ago
  That's an odd dichotomy, because the overlap between those two groups is much larger than you might think. There's a common trope thrown around that "the first amendment only applies to the government"...which is obviously true and nobody credible actually believes otherwise. The debate at hand is about the principle of free speech. That is to say, the so called "current republican" argues that the same ideals that justify guaranteeing the freedom to express oneself in public, free from government persecution, ought to be applied with private companies that host the "public square". The First Amendment isn't relevant here, because obviously there's no law that prohibits a private company from censoring. The issue at hand is an ought question; i.e. should a purportedly open platform provided by a private company censor political speech? In theory, the same arguments one would make in defense of maintaining the First Amendment (in its current form) in our Constitution also applies in defense of advocating that a private company hosting a "public square" platform ought not to censor political speech. So circling back to the original question: we now have this Oversight Board which ostensibly has a diverse array of "experts" who we expect to weigh in on complex cases (a "Supreme Court" of sorts). The question is, how diverse is this board? Does it include anyone that might advocate what I laid out above? A couple other commenters provided examples (thanks!), but it's an important question that bears repeating. I'm also not sure how the system ensures that the pool of experts remains sufficiently diverse over time as members retire.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    You're making a mistake. The boards charter isn't to set facebooks policies, but to ensure that Facebook is enforcing them consistently. Facebooks policies aren't free speech absolutist in the second sense, so it doesn't much matter. Advocating for what you did above isn't on the charter because the board accepts that Facebook has moderation policies as a premise of ensuring that it follows those policies. To use a legal metaphor, fb policies are a constitution and the board is a supreme court. Facebook can amend it's constitution however it likes, and so there is no such thing as am unconstitutional law.