Should a user be allowed to share a politician’s hate speech with the intent of highlighting how dreadful it is, even if the user doesn’t post any accompanying information? Should photographs of deceased children be allowed if they are used to drive home a political point? Where should the line be drawn between misinformation and the criticism of a national government’s COVID-19 policy? The board’s first six cases highlight some of the tricky decisions that Facebook’s moderators regularly face. “Seeing it in action, it’s difficult to compare it to a court if this is the level of information that is provided.” “I am pretty concerned that ultimately we are not going to have a good sense of what information they’re basing the decisions on,” Kayyali says. Facebook removed the post for incitement to violence, for containing a “veiled threat” against Macron.Įxperts questioned the limited information that the Oversight Board has made available about each case. The Oversight Board replaced that case with a post involving alleged incitement to violence in India: a photo of a man with a sword, with a caption “that discusses drawing a sword from its scabbard in response to ‘infidels’ criticizing the prophet.” The accompanying text appears to refer to recent comments by President Emmanuel Macron of France, which some Muslims considered Islamophobic.
#OVERSIGHT FACEBOOK COVID19CLARK THEVERGE UPDATE#
The user posted the message without comment, in what they said was an effort to raise awareness of the “horrible words” Mohamad had used.īut on Friday, the Oversight Board issued an update saying that it could no longer consider the case involving messages by Malaysia’s former leader because the post in question had been removed by the user who posted it, making it ineligible for review. In a sixth case announced Tuesday, a user had shared comments made by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad saying Muslims have the right to kill millions of French people-comments which were removed by Facebook for violating hate speech rules. A post within a Facebook group criticizing France’s COVID-19 strategy and claiming that the unproven drugs hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin are cures for COVID-19.Īll of the posts were originally deleted by Facebook moderators-decisions that the users behind the messages argue were unfair.
The user said the quote was meant as commentary on current U.S.
The board shared details about its first six cases on Dec.
What are the cases the Facebook Oversight Board is considering? “We don’t know if this board is actually going to make any sort of difference on the policy and behavior of the platform until they decide their first cases and we see how Facebook reacts,” says Dia Kayyali, associate director of advocacy at Mnemonic, a human rights group. The goal, the board said, is to set precedents by ruling on cases that will likely affect lots of users. It also has no subpoena power to request internal documents from Facebook-for example, in cases where complaints have been made about staff decision-making, a spokesperson for the board confirmed to TIME.Īnd so far, it has only selected six cases out of more than 20,000 reported by users since submissions opened in October, and has given itself three months to deliberate.
0 kommentar(er)
