Facebook on Wednesday announced the first members of its independent ‘supreme court’ empowered to make binding decisions about what content should be allowed or removed at the social network and Instagram.
The oversight board is to make final decisions regarding the kinds of posts known to embroil Facebook in controversy about censorship, misinformation or free speech.
Facebook public policy director Brent Harris described creation of the board as the ‘beginning of a fundamental change in the way some of the most difficult content decisions on Facebook will be made.’
The 20 announced members of the panel come from various countries and include jurists, human rights activists, journalists, a Nobel peace laureate and a former Danish prime minister.
A member of the U.K. Parliament’s committee on Culture, Media, and Sport, MP Damian Green MP, said that Facebook ‘fails miserably to provide confidence in its political balance.’
‘Globally, Facebook is much more important than any newspaper or broadcaster, so it has a consequent responsibility to demonstrate it is open to a range of views.’
Scroll down for the full list of members
The board was first proposed by Facebook co-founder and chief Mark Zuckerberg in 2018, and the California-based internet giant has set up a foundation to fund it
Former Danish prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, seen in a 2018 photo, is one of the chairs of Facebook’s independent oversight panel sometimes referred to as a ‘supreme court’
‘This is a group that has a diverse set of insights, backgrounds, and beliefs but share a deep commitment to advancing human rights and freedom of expression,’ board director Thomas Hughes said during a phone briefing.
The board is to be expanded to 40 members. It remained unclear when the board would start hearing cases due to restrictions on gathering or traveling caused by the deadly coronavirus pandemic.
Board members have met virtually and training has started, according to Hughes.
The board was first proposed by Facebook co-founder and chief Mark Zuckerberg in 2018, and the California-based internet giant has set up a foundation to fund it operating as an independent entity, Harris said.
‘As the world lives through a global health crisis, social media has become a lifeline for helping people and communities to stay connected,,’ the board said in a blog post.
‘At the same time, we know that social media can spread speech that is hateful, harmful and deceitful. In recent years, the question of what content should stay up or come down, and who should decide this, has become increasingly urgent for society.’
Hughes said he was open to the board serving as an arbiter of disputes for other social media firms such as Twitter but that, for now, the focus is on filling its roster and getting into action on cases about Facebook or Instagram posts.
Facebook will implement the board’s decisions, unless they violate law, and ‘respond’ to guidance on policies, according to Harris.
The board said it will decide whether disputed posts comply with Facebook and Instagram policies and ‘values’ as well as freedom of expression within the framework of international norms of human rights regardless of the social network’s corporate interests.
The board will make decisions public and report on how well Facebook obeys rulings.
Zuckerberg has personally assured the board the social network will abide by its decisions, according to co-chair Helle Thorning-Schmidt, a former prime minister of Denmark.
Former U.S. federal circuit judge Michael McConnell (left) and constitutional law expert Jamal Greene (right) are the American co-chairs of the board
Colombian attorney Catalina Botero-Marino is the fourth co-chair. The co-chairs selected the other members of Facebook’s ‘supreme court’
What to know about Facebook’s content oversight board
WHAT WILL THE OVERSIGHT BOARD REVIEW?
The board, which some have dubbed Facebook’s ‘Supreme Court,’ will rule on whether some individual pieces of content should be displayed on the site. It can also recommend changes to Facebook’s content policy, based on a case decision or at the company’s request.
At first, the board will review posts, videos, photos and comments that the company has decided to remove from Facebook or its photo-sharing site Instagram, but eventually it will handle cases where content was left up.
This could be content involving issues such as nudity, violence or hate speech. Facebook has said the board’s remit will in future include ads, groups, pages, profiles and events, but has not given a time frame.
It will not deal with Instagram direct messages, Facebook’s messaging platforms WhatsApp, Messenger, its dating service or its Oculus virtual reality products.
Facebook expects the board will initially take on only ‘dozens’ of cases, a small percentage of the thousands it expects will eventually be brought to the board. In 2019, users appealed more than 10 million pieces of content that Facebook removed or took action on.
But Facebook’s head of global affairs, Nick Clegg, told Reuters he thought the cases chosen would have a wider relevance to patterns of content disputes.
HOW WILL THE BOARD WORK?
The board will decide which cases it reviews, which can be referred either by a user who has exhausted Facebook’s normal appeals process or by Facebook itself for cases that might be ‘significant and difficult.’
Users who disagree with Facebook’s final decision on their content will have 15 days to submit a case to the board through the board’s website.
Each case will be reviewed by a panel of five members, with at least one from the same geographic region as the case originated. The panel can ask for subject matter experts to help make its decision, which then must be finalized by the whole board.
The board’s case decision – which is binding unless it could violate the law – must be made and implemented within 90 days, though Facebook can ask for a 30-day expedited review for exceptional cases, including those with ‘urgent real-world consequences.’
Users will be notified of the board’s ruling on their case and the board will publicly publish the decision.
When the board gives policy recommendations, Facebook will give public updates and publish a response on the guidance and follow-on action within 30 days.
For more details on the board’s operations, see Facebook’s proposed bylaws.
WHO IS ON THE OVERSIGHT BOARD?
The board will eventually have about 40 members.
Facebook chose the four co-chairs – former U.S. federal circuit judge Michael McConnell and constitutional law expert Jamal Greene from the United States, Colombian attorney Catalina Botero-Marino and former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt – who then jointly selected the other 16 members named so far.
Some were sourced from the global consultations conducted by Facebook to obtain feedback on the oversight board.
The members, who will be part-time, so far include constitutional law experts, civil rights advocates, academics, journalists, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and a former judge of the European Court of Human Rights.
The members will be paid by a trust that Facebook has created and will serve three-year terms for a maximum of nine years.
The trustees can remove a member before the end of their term for violating the board’s code of conduct, but not for content decisions.
Thomas Hughes, former executive director for freedom of expression rights group Article 19, has also been appointed to oversee the board’s full-time administrative staff.
‘This board is not designed to be an echo chamber,’ said co-chair Catalina Botero-Marino of the Universidad de los Andes Faculty of Law in Colombia.
‘Facebook would have a very high reputational cost if it doesn’t carry out decisions by a body it created to resolve its thorniest problems.’
Facebook cannot remove members or staff of the board, which is supported by a $130 million irrevocable trust fund.
‘For the first time, an independent body will make final and binding decisions on what stays up and what is removed,’ Thorning-Schmidt said.
‘This is a big deal; we are basically building a new model for platform governance.’
Board co-chair Michael McConnell, a university law professor and former US federal judge, said the expected volume of cases would make it impossible to consider them all.
Instead, like the US Supreme Court, the board will prioritize content removal cases that can set precedents for how Facebook should handle similar material, according to McConnell.
‘We are going to have to select maybe a few flowers, or maybe they are weeds, from a field of possibilities,’ McConnell said.
The board plans to first focus on cases affecting large numbers of users; second on cases look to have major effect on public discourse, and then those that effect policy at the platform, he explained.
‘We are not the internet police,’ McConnell said.
‘Don’t think of us as a fast action team that is going to swoop in. Our job is to consider appeals, provide an after-the-fact, deliberative second look.’
Full list of first 20 members of Facebook’s ‘supreme court’
Afia Asantewaa Asare-Kyei – A human rights advocate who works on women’s rights, media freedom and access to information issues across Africa at the Open Society Initiative for West Africa
Evelyn Aswad – A University of Oklahoma College of Law professor who formerly served as a senior State Department lawyer and specializes in the application of international human rights standards to content moderation issues
Endy Bayuni – A journalist who twice served as the editor-in-chief of The Jakarta Post, and helps direct a journalists’ association that promotes excellence in the coverage of religion and spirituality.
Catalina Botero Marino, co-chair – A former U.N. special rapporteur for freedom of expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States who now serves as dean of the Universidad de los Andes Faculty of Law.
Katherine Chen – A communications scholar at the National Chengchi University who studies social media, mobile news and privacy, and a former national communications regulator in Taiwan.
Nighat Dad – A digital rights advocate who offers digital security training to women in Pakistan and across South Asia to help them protect themselves against online harassment, campaigns against government restrictions on dissent, and received the Human Rights Tulip Award.
Jamal Greene, co-chair – A Columbia Law professor who focuses on constitutional rights adjudication and the structure of legal and constitutional argument.
Pamela Karlan – A Stanford Law professor and Supreme Court advocate who has represented clients in voting rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and First Amendment cases, and serves as a member of the board of the American Constitution Society.
Tawakkol Karman – A Nobel Peace Prize laureate who used her voice to promote nonviolent change in Yemen during the Arab Spring, and was named as one of ‘History’s Most Rebellious Women’ by Time magazine.
Maina Kiai – A director of Human Rights Watch’s Global Alliances and Partnerships Program and a former U.N. special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association who has decades of experience advocating for human rights in Kenya.
Sudhir Krishnaswamy – A vice chancellor of the National Law School of India University who co-founded an advocacy organization that works to advance constitutional values for everyone, including LGBTQ+ and transgender persons, in India.
Ronaldo Lemos – A technology, intellectual property and media lawyer who co-created a national internet rights law in Brazil, co-founded a nonprofit focused on technology and policy issues, and teaches law at the Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.
Michael McConnell, co-chair – A former U.S. federal circuit judge who is now a constitutional law professor at Stanford, an expert on religious freedom, and a Supreme Court advocate who has represented clients in a wide range of First Amendment cases involving freedom of speech, religion and association.
Julie Owono – A digital rights and anti-censorship advocate who leads Internet Sans Frontières and campaigns against internet censorship in Africa and around the world.
Emi Palmor – A former director general of the Israeli Ministry of Justice who led initiatives to address racial discrimination, advance access to justice via digital services and platforms and promote diversity in the public sector.
Alan Rusbridger – A former editor-in-chief of The Guardian who transformed the newspaper into a global institution and oversaw its Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the Edward Snowden disclosures.
András Sajó – A former judge and vice president of the European Court of Human Rights who is an expert in free speech and comparative constitutionalism.
John Samples – A public intellectual who writes extensively on social media and speech regulation, advocates against restrictions on online expression, and helps lead a libertarian think tank.
Nicolas Suzor – A Queensland University of Technology Law School professor who focuses on the governance of social networks and the regulation of automated systems, and has published a book on internet governance.
Helle Thorning-Schmidt, co-chair – A former prime minister of Denmark who repeatedly took stands for free expression while in office and then served as CEO of Save the Children.
