Strange days indeed if my feed isn't blowing up with comments about the people named as co-chairs of Facebook's Oversight Board. Catalina Botero-Marino, Jamal Greene, Michael W. McConnell and Helle Thorning-Schmidt authored this boldly titled op ed today. nytimes.com/2020/05/06/opi…
I'm a massive fan of Botero-Marino. Her work on platform issues as OAS Free Expression rapporteur was groundbreaking.
Beyond that it's certainly a global north-heavy list, for starters...
Beyond that it's certainly a global north-heavy list, for starters...
I'm also hearing from multiple sources that FB is pitching the Board as a model for other platforms. That is disappointing, if true. The Board is a massive, bold, important experiment. I wish it the best. But let's road test this before even thinking about expansion.
Pitching it as a model for YouTube or Twitter is dangerous in particular because policy-makers are desperate for ways forward. We already see them grasping onto this one in proposals. No one should encourage that until we know what works and doesn't, what needs iteration, etc.
So many people don't seem to understand even the inherent limitations of the Board -- like that it can only review a very small number of cases. Let's get everyone on the same page about those things before anyone talks about expansion.
We also need a good long think about whether we want big and small platforms converging on a single rule set, or a more or less consistent one.
There is huge value in having a diversity of forums, with a diversity of rules for speech.
There is huge value in having a diversity of forums, with a diversity of rules for speech.
On that question, check out @evelyndouek 's great work on Content Cartels. knightcolumbia.org/content/the-ri…
Full list of board names is here. All the ones I know are solid and credentialed professionals in relevant fields. oversightboard.com/news/announcin…
The Q I hear most about the Board is "will it be independent?"
My A is: It is in FB's interest to make it as independent as possible. (Or to make it appear so - but given close scrutiny, I think independence will be real) This changes only if the Board gets a lot more power.
My A is: It is in FB's interest to make it as independent as possible. (Or to make it appear so - but given close scrutiny, I think independence will be real) This changes only if the Board gets a lot more power.
