Meta 'Supreme Court' Expands with European Center to Handle TikTok, YouTube Cases (msn.com) 18
Meta's Oversight Board "is spinning off a new appeals center," reports the Washington Post, "to handle content disputes from European social media users on multiple platforms".
It will operate under Europe's Digital Services Act, "which requires tech companies to allow users to appeal restrictions on their accounts before an independent group of experts." "I think this is really a game changer," Appeals Centre Europe CEO Thomas Hughes said in an interview. "It could really drive platform accountability and transparency."
The expansion arrives as the Oversight Board, an independent collection of academics, experts and lawyers funded by Meta, has been seeking to expand its influence beyond the social media giant... [The Board] has tried for years to court other major internet companies, offering to help them referee debates about content, The Post has reported...
Oversight Board members and Oversight Board Trust Chairman Stephen Neal said in statements that both the Appeals Centre Europe and the Oversight Board will play critical but complimentary roles in holding tech companies accountable for their decisions on content. "Both entities are committed to improving user redress, transparency and upholding users' rights online," Neal said...
Hughes, who used to be the Oversight Board's administration director, said that he was "proud" of what the Oversight Board is accomplishing but that it is different from what the Appeals Centre Europe will offer. When Facebook, YouTube or TikTok removes a post, European social media users will be able to appeal the decision to the center. Users also will also be able to flag the center with posts they think violate the rules but were not removed. While the Appeals Centre Europe's decisions will be nonbinding, the group will generate data that could power decisions by regulators, civil society groups and the general public, Hughes said. By contrast, the Oversight Board's decisions on Meta content are binding.
Last year the original Oversight Board completed more than 50 cases, "and is on track to exceed that number in 2024," according to the article. But this board is different, CEO Hughes told the Post. They'll have about two dozen staffers, with expertise in human rights and tech policy — or fluency in various languages.
And he added that though the center is funded by an initial grant, future operating costs will be covered by the fees social media companies pay the appeal center — roughly 90 euros ($100) per case.
It will operate under Europe's Digital Services Act, "which requires tech companies to allow users to appeal restrictions on their accounts before an independent group of experts." "I think this is really a game changer," Appeals Centre Europe CEO Thomas Hughes said in an interview. "It could really drive platform accountability and transparency."
The expansion arrives as the Oversight Board, an independent collection of academics, experts and lawyers funded by Meta, has been seeking to expand its influence beyond the social media giant... [The Board] has tried for years to court other major internet companies, offering to help them referee debates about content, The Post has reported...
Oversight Board members and Oversight Board Trust Chairman Stephen Neal said in statements that both the Appeals Centre Europe and the Oversight Board will play critical but complimentary roles in holding tech companies accountable for their decisions on content. "Both entities are committed to improving user redress, transparency and upholding users' rights online," Neal said...
Hughes, who used to be the Oversight Board's administration director, said that he was "proud" of what the Oversight Board is accomplishing but that it is different from what the Appeals Centre Europe will offer. When Facebook, YouTube or TikTok removes a post, European social media users will be able to appeal the decision to the center. Users also will also be able to flag the center with posts they think violate the rules but were not removed. While the Appeals Centre Europe's decisions will be nonbinding, the group will generate data that could power decisions by regulators, civil society groups and the general public, Hughes said. By contrast, the Oversight Board's decisions on Meta content are binding.
Last year the original Oversight Board completed more than 50 cases, "and is on track to exceed that number in 2024," according to the article. But this board is different, CEO Hughes told the Post. They'll have about two dozen staffers, with expertise in human rights and tech policy — or fluency in various languages.
And he added that though the center is funded by an initial grant, future operating costs will be covered by the fees social media companies pay the appeal center — roughly 90 euros ($100) per case.
Digital sovereignty (Score:3)
Oversight conflict (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't do a good and fair job, it will come back to bite them when some citizen takes it to court and the court notices their shenanigans. Acting in bad faith is a pretty reliable way to lose.
Re:Oversight conflict (Score:4, Interesting)
believe that there might be small conflict of interest. It's hard to be independent from the one that pays you check.
1) It's already better than the situation we have now. Right now if a random low-pay Facebook moderator sub-contracted in another country deleted your post, it is not clear how to have the decision reverted, who handles the appeals, and how much time they have available to consider individual cases. As the possibility of an appeal is now required by law, Meta has made a moderation oversight board, whose sole full-time function is to handle appeals.
2) The notion of independence does not depend that much on who signs the check, but if the contract can be realistically revoked. If the Oversight Board is managed like an Ethics Committee at a University, then it's fine. In such committees, the academics are compensated for their service, by still belong to their original academic institution (usually it's part time but in any case their previous job is waiting for them); and their appointment for a term does not depend on a manager above. Whether the Meta board works like that, I don't know, my point is that it is possible to implement it in a way to minimize conflicts of interest.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
From the FAQ https://www.oversightboard.com... [oversightboard.com]
How Does the Structure of the Oversight Board Ensure Its Independence?
The structure created for the Oversight Board is designed to ensure the independence of Board Members and allow them to make judgments free from influence or interference by Meta. Board Members do not contract with Meta, are not Meta employees and cannot be removed by Meta. The Board has its own independent set of procedures, and its own separate staff to support the case decisions issued by Board Members. The Oversight Board Trust is irrevocable and its Trustees serve in a fiduciary capacity to protect the purpose of the trust.
How Is the Oversight Board Funded?
In 2019, Meta (then Facebook) established an irrevocable trust and transferred $130 million for the set-up and operations of the Oversight Board to the Trustees. On July 22, 2022, Meta announced additional funding of $150 million to be transferred to the Trustees as part of a commitment to provide ongoing financial support to the Oversight Board.
Re: (Score:2)
But don't worry, once the appeals center is fully established, you can be sure of getting an average of at most 90 euros worth of justice in the cases that it handles!
I'm curious how that 90 euros/case will compare with Facebook's Oversight Board, which needed two dozen staffers to resolve 50 cases in one year. Is this a "they lose money on every case but make it up in volume" type situation?
Re: (Score:1)
From the FAQ https://www.oversightboard.com... [oversightboard.com]
How Does the Structure of the Oversight Board Ensure Its Independence?
The structure created for the Oversight Board is designed to ensure the independence of Board Members and allow them to make judgments free from influence or interference by Meta. Board Members do not contract with Meta, are not Meta employees and cannot be removed by Meta. The Board has its own independent set of procedures, and its own separate staff to support the case decisions issued by Board Members. The Oversight Board Trust is irrevocable and its Trustees serve in a fiduciary capacity to protect the purpose of the trust.
How Is the Oversight Board Funded?
In 2019, Meta (then Facebook) established an irrevocable trust and transferred $130 million for the set-up and operations of the Oversight Board to the Trustees. On July 22, 2022, Meta announced additional funding of $150 million to be transferred to the Trustees as part of a commitment to provide ongoing financial support to the Oversight Board.
Yes, but from what i understand "On 2022 meta announced additional funding of $150 million to be transferred to the Trustees" it doesn't say that they transferred it but "to be transferred" and that is for me still potential conflict of interests (possible financial gains in the future). There is a reason why you can't give, a donation to the court for example to have them renovate building.
And from the FAQ an interesting limitation of who can appeal to the board:
"To submit an appeal, individuals must
Re: Oversight conflict (Score:2)
Indeed, who watches the watchers becomes who will sign their cheques? You know I think I'm getting better at these html tags, but don't let that distract you from the point of this discussion
Re: (Score:1)
[The Board] has tried for years to court other major internet companies, offering to help them referee debates about content
LOL. Right. Because they have done such a great job on Facebook.
Meta's oversight board (Score:2)
is a great idea. Just don't tie it to Meta - or any other for-profit Big Data platform: make it publicly funded and attached to the justice department.
Re:Meta's oversight board (Score:4, Informative)
It is self-funded. According to the FAQ, Meta established it as a separate entity with a 280 million dollars endowment. It should be able to pay staff indefinitely using investment returns.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... And I'm 100% convinced it's not at all a smokescreen set up by Facebook and their privacy invading buddies to pretend they do something about the problems and therefore the government should leave them alone.
This "court" needs to be independent by legally answering to real courts, not by doing whatever the hell they want - or more likely, whatever the hell whoever pays the officers the most under the table wants.
The jokes write themselves (Score:1)
Oversight Board = Ministry of Truth (Score:2, Informative)
decisions will be nonbinding (Score:2)
Well, that pretty much sums up the final outcome. When push comes to shove, social media companies will do whatever they want. There are only sticks and no carrots for social media here, they will only be poked so much.
If this new board were binding, and the fess go to the company at 90 each, then it looks like arbitration in the US. In which case, large groups of people filing cases all at once can hurt the company.
Replacing courts with nonbinding bullshit is manipulative and uncool. The system will eventu