Share this page!

evelyn douek Profile picture
Twitter logo
11 Feb, 17 tweets, 6 min read
It's quite remarkable to see the extent of serious engagement with the public comment process at the fb @OversightBoard re: Trump's account

Here's a strong letter from, amongst others, @rickhasen, @davidakaye and @alexstamos

politico.com/f/?id=00000177…
Things I'm curious about:
1. If the decision goes against public comment, will that discourage future participation?
2. Level of intl engagement
3. If future overseas cases can also garner such considered engagement (I sure hope so!)
Really starting to regret not putting my comment on letterhead...

It’s honestly amazing how many thoughtful and serious submissions there are
It’s possible there might be a few unserious ones too....
Adding this submission to this thread too, given it's a must read
... did not see Republicans on the House Judiciary committee submitting comments coming

axios.com/republicans-ra…
There are too many now for this thread to be comprehensive but here's another great comment to the FOB from @accessnow highlighting the lack of global consistency in fb's attitude to state figures with the powerful example of Sudan

accessnow.org/cms/assets/upl…
@accessnow Here's the @JudiciaryGOP letter focusing on... a different type of alleged inconsistency. Note: does not comment on the account suspension itself.

@accessnow @JudiciaryGOP And this from @changeterms

Not sure what I expected but this is truly a staggering number of heavyweights engaging with the comment process

This creates the potential for another kind of legitimacy problem: the vast vast majority of experts have weighed in in favor of upholding the ban. If the FOB decides otherwise, how can they claim they have more expertise than this critical mass?
Should've been clearer. It's only the comments that commentators have made public that all weigh in this direction. The rest (now ~10,000....) can be made public at the time of decision, if commentators consent.
And another one...

The sheer amount of time and energy that has gone into submissions to the FOB is... something!

Here's another one

A waste? Legitimizing a figleaf? Good that there's finally an avenue for these to be heard that might have impact? Good for it to be public and directed? Better than tweetstorms as a vehicle for change? All of the above?
I'm also quite amazed by how one-sided all the comments that have been made public are. Shows it was an easy decision? Shows my filter bubble? Shows which side of politics thinks the experiment is worth engaging with? Shows preference falsification?
Guess I'm just disappointed Merkel hasn't made her submission public.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with evelyn douek

evelyn douek Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @evelyndouek

evelyn douek Profile picture
17 Feb
"Content-moderation decisions are momentous but they are as momentous as they are bc of fb’s engineering decisions & other choices that determine which speech proliferates... & in what context [users] see it"

Great op-ed by @JameelJaffer & @KGlennBass

nytimes.com/2021/02/17/opi…
I think it's unlikely the @OversightBoard will take their recommendation to refuse to answer the question abt Trump's account until fb commissions & publishes a study abt the lead up to Jan. 6

(Altho I think it should and likely will recommend such a study in their decision)
But what if they do? A fun hypothetical for this wannabe law professor to imagine.

A possible "constitutional" show down!
Read 7 tweets
evelyn douek Profile picture
26 Jan
"The First Amendment of the era aided us. The guarantee of free speech is for democracy; it is worth little, in the end, apart from it."

Great @emilybazelon piece.

Fun fact from this humble foreign observer...

nytimes.com/2021/01/26/mag…
The US has a rich tradition of seeing the 1A as existing to facilitate democracy and self-government. Australia drew on that thinking in implying a freedom of political communication into its Constitution which, famously, has no right to free speech.
During the same period (as Emily documents, drawing on @glakier's work), the US itself moved way from that tradition, adopting an increasingly libertarian view of the 1A instead.
Read 5 tweets
evelyn douek Profile picture
11 Jan
I want Facebook to refer its suspension of Trump's account to the @OversightBoard. You should too.

lawfareblog.com/facebook-overs…
absolutely nailed the spelling of "too" this time ☺️
@OversightBoard Checks and balances shouldn't exist only for decisions taken against the winds of public opinion. Facebook should allow oversight of its most high-profile and controversial content moderation decision yet.
Read 6 tweets
evelyn douek Profile picture
10 Jan
After thinking about it, I think Facebook should refer its Trump suspension to the @OversightBoard, and it should use the expedited process to do so.

You should to.
This is one of the most consequential and high profile decisions in content moderation, and we don't trust that it was made on principal rather than business expediency.

This is *exactly* what the @OversightBoard and its expedited process is for. If not now, when?
The usual calls for @OversightBoard intervention are quiet, but we should not only want checks and balances for decisions we agree with.
Read 10 tweets
evelyn douek Profile picture
9 Jan
In two weeks, Trump will be out of power, but platforms won’t be. They should be forced to live up to the sentiments in their fig-leaf rationales.

My thoughts on the Great Deplatforming.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
The title suggests I'm calling for Mass Deplatformings, which is not my point at all. What I want is for platforms to live up to the myth of content moderation they tell, that their decisions are Principled and In The Public Interest; that they will be consistent and contextual.
I believe there are speech interests at stake in the decisions platforms make. I don't buy that these are companies so just let them do whatever, whenever. We deserve better than that.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Read 5 tweets
evelyn douek Profile picture
7 Oct 20
I have literally no idea what Facebook's new policy is on QAnon or what it will apply to in future, and so I would like you to please read this post but replace "Twitter" with "Facebook"

lawfareblog.com/twitter-brings…
It seems pretty sui generis, which makes sense because no one is really sure what QAnon is. Not even many of its adherents

wired.com/story/qanon-su…
Hard not to think that the House condemnation played a role here, given timing. I hope so: that seems a more accountable and democratic way for this to work. I wish that had been made explicit.

washingtonpost.com/powerpost/elec…
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @evelyndouek has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @evelyndouek!

Read all threads by @evelyndouek