This is an important and careful review of the Oversight Board, with robust recommendations that provide important markers now for how Facebook responds and develops the institution. THREAD on some of the things we should watch coming out of this: /1
One of the most important, echoing a constant theme in my own work, is that the "subject matter jurisdiction" (as I call it here ssrn.com/abstract=33653…) needs to expand over time beyond mere take-down/leave up decisions, if the Board is to be a meaningful check /2 
A huge and welcome theme of the report is the need to focus on vulnerable groups, noting the difficulty, intersectionality and contextuality of determining this. Imp. to note that this (& other recs) is a rec for the Board, which Facebook cannot and should not control /3
Hugely important, simple and impactful recommendation: users should be provided with support and a "user advocate" in cases. Facebook will be a "repeat player" in cases - users should not be disadvantaged bc of this or any other lack of resources /4
Striking proposal for Oversight Board's power to go beyond mere declarations and policy recs, and have bigger remedial jurisdiction incl. $$$. I'm not sure how I feel abt this, when the Board will only hear a small fraction of cases, but in v. serious cases it cld be imp. /5
One of the biggest issues is that we can't escape Facebook's impact, even if we leave Facebook. Here's a simple rec to address that: even non-users should be able to bring cases. I would go even broader and allow 3rd parties to bring cases on behalf of affected ppl: /6
Critical - so much so that even technically out of scope the report makes the point that the Board doesn't absolve Fb of the need to provide meaningful appeals more generally /7
The report also suggests specific wording for the bylaws to make sure it's clear that: the Board will consider ALL relevant human rights (not just, say, freedom of expression) and it will do so in accordance with est. methods for doing so (necessity, prop., legitimate) /8
Another clear sign this was a truly independent review - recs that the Board be consulted on policy changes (Fb prob wouldn't love this!). I don't know I agree - I think Fb should consult other experts, while the Board is a separate body that "checks" decisions retrospectively /9
Wholeheartedly agree with this though - I'm okay with the Board's policy recs not necessarily being binding, but there needs to be a requirement to formally respond (this is in the Charter) and a timeline for doing so (this is not) /10
Further to this, the report notes that actually incorporating the Board's proposals will be necessary to uphold Fb's responsibility not to repeat human rights violations. /11
Lots more in there. It's an impressive and important report. Kudos for Fb for commissioning it - now they need to respond and implement it. Overall, the report shares my cautious optimism about the project. /FIN
