Conditions for admissibility of individual complaints, such as time limitations, should be specified, and it should be possible for individuals to be represented by another organisation or lawyer, or for aggregated or ‘class action’ complaints to be made. to control its docket – like a court) on the basis primarily of complaints from users and, possibly, of cases referred by Facebook. The Board should be able to select the cases it wants to hear (i.e. The Board should be in charge of the selection of cases, and the procedures for bringing cases and obtaining evidence should be set out in detail.Īllowing the Board only to hear individual complaints or cases selected by Facebook would undermine its effectiveness, independence and legitimacy.If Facebook holds the power to remove a member, this will damage the credibility and independence of the Board. Equally, only the Board itself should have the power to remove members and the reasons and procedure for removal should clearly be defined in the Charter. In order to ensure credibility and transparency, the selection process should involve the participation of others, for example through some kind of public consultation on a range of selected applicants before the final choice is made, or by having an independent panel select the first cohort. Given the need for true independence for this body to work, the selection of the members of the Oversight Board should not remain in the sole hands of Facebook. Members of the Board should be selected in a transparent and independent manner.The Board must also include international human rights experts, to ensure that decisions protect human rights and comply with international standards which companies like Facebook must abide by in their activities. At a minimum, in addition to gender parity, the Oversight Board should include members of groups including LGBTQI people, those from different regions, ethnicities, cultural origins, and religious and philosophical perspectives. We believe that consideration should be given to creating these boards at the national level, where it would be more feasible to identify the appropriate range of actors to be represented to ensure legitimacy and credibility. The Oversight Board must represent the whole diversity of society, including marginalised groups and those targeted for discrimination. The Board must be comprised of a diverse group of experts, representing a range of different views and experiences.As part of the company’s process of consultation and development towards setting up the Oversight Board, ARTICLE 19 offers the following recommendations: Composition of the oversight board However, the proposal put forward by Facebook is an important first step in acknowledging the need for, and developing, mechanisms that reinforce the protection of online freedom of expression and other rights. We believe this model, which we call Social Media Councils, is the best approach for the protection of human rights, including freedom of expression, in relation to content moderation. Facebook announced that they would hold global consultations to elaborate on this proposal and prepare the creation of the board, which have been taking place this year.ĪRTICLE 19 continues to advocate for the self-regulation of social media platforms through the development of open, participatory and accountable multi-stakeholder bodies, working across platforms and at national level. It was followed by the publication, in January, of a draft Charter that gave initial proposals on how the Oversight Board would operate. The body would oversee decisions about the removal of content from the platform, to address ongoing concerns on content regulation by the platform. In November last year, Mark Zuckerberg announced Facebook’s plan to create an ‘independent oversight body’.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |