Facebook’S “Advisory Committee” Has Imposed Severe Penalties On Four Internet Content Deletions In Its First Five Judgments

2021-01-28   |   by CusiGO

The Facebook content advisory board has released its first five judgments in content deletion cases filed by users and companies. When the company asks if their decision is correct, users ask their posts on this network or instagram to be visible again. These cases, involving hate speech, incitement to violence or nudity, originated in France, Brazil, the United States or Azerbaijan.

A Brazilian user once saw a picture with several female nipples, asking to see breast cancer. The Committee disagreed and asked Facebook to provide clearer guidelines for automatic deletion of content in its policy on women’s nipples and tumors: “please provide better information when it is automatically decided to use content for palliative purposes, Ensure that users can appeal these decisions to humans in some cases, and improve the automatic image detection system to ensure that publications that want to draw attention to breast cancer symptoms are not mistakenly marked for review. “, In its text on the case, the Council said.

The agency announced in May 2020 that it has been accepting cases since October, and is the ultimate organization for users to complain about what content may or may not be included on the platform. In these early decisions, the committee had a very complicated case, by the company itself: should we let Donald Trump go back to Facebook and instagram? At present, four of the first five cases chose to overturn Facebook’s decision, and the former US president’s hope of returning to the platform has suddenly greatly increased. The company chose not to allow trump to return until the case was referred to the Advisory Committee. The gesture gave him a new chance. “The designated team is just beginning to analyze the case,” Michael McConnell, CO chairman of the board, said in a telephone news conference with reporters around the world

Among the cases covered was a rumor and covid involving France. One user published an article complaining that hydroxychloroquine was not recommended. Facebook removed it because it could cause “imminent harm” to other users. Now, the committee told Facebook it was wrong because it did not meet “international standards for freedom of speech” and “users are opposed to government policy and eager to change it,” he said. “The drug combination described in this article constitutes a treatment without prescription in France and does not encourage the purchase or use of over-the-counter drugs,” he added. In a press conference call with reporters from around the world, hele thorning Schmidt, CO president of the Security Council, said the decisions would complicate Facebook’s life: “it’s a difficult situation, and we understand why Facebook is deleting these things. “Maybe it’s easier to suppress than to elaborate,” he said in a conference call with reporters.

Monica Bickert, Facebook’s vice president of content policy, released the company’s response to these early decisions. They are welcome to continue to receive opinions “for many years”, but they will not change their community policy in the specific case of rumor making and covid: “it is crucial that we all have access to accurate information, and our current plan to eliminate rumor making is based on extensive consultation with leading scientists, The United States and the World Health Organization. During the pandemic, the plan won’t change, “Bickert said.

Facebook’s Supreme Court is currently made up of 20 global celebrities. They include the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Yemeni President tawakul Coleman, former Danish Prime Minister Heller sonin Schmidt or 20-year-old Guardian editor Alan rasbridger. The only Spanish speaker is Catalina Botero Marino, a Colombian lawyer, Dean of the school of law at the University of the Andes, and the 2008-2014 OAS reporter on freedom of expression.

The only example of the Security Council strengthening Facebook’s position is its decision to delete a user’s post, who uses Russian derogatory terms to refer to Azerbaijanis and says they have no history compared to Armenians.

The last two cases in which the Security Council reversed Facebook’s decision involved a remark by Nazi Joseph Goebbels and photos of the notorious Syrian refugee child aylan KURDI killed on a beach. The ruling, which criticizes Facebook’s translation of the text, seems to imply that Muslims are “out of their heads”, which is inaccurate and thus overturns his decision. Charlie’s overreaction to Muhammad’s comics.

In Goebbels’ words, “arguments should not attract intellectuals, but emotions and instincts. Facebook canceled the appointment because Goebbels was on Facebook’s list of “dangerous people” and the article had no context, so some people thought Goebbels would get some support. The Security Council said that it was incorrect for users to support Nazism, but he just wanted to compare it with Trump’s presidency, and from the comments of users’ friends, he always followed the Council’s words. Therefore, they see no reason to delete Goebbels’ quotation in this case.

This very detailed analysis of Facebook posts will lead to their decision being overturned. Their hosts often have no time to make decisions, even because an automated system has removed them and cannot reach humans. From this point of view, Trump’s situation may be different, because this is not a decision taken lightly by Facebook management.

Five team members analyzed a case, which must then be confirmed by others. At least one member must come from the disputed area. “When the Council makes a decision on these cases, Facebook must implement that decision and respond publicly to any policy recommendations issued by the Council,” the agency said.

According to the New York Times, member states spend about 15 hours a week on the work, charging six figures a year. Facebook has provided 130 million dollars to manage the committee, but ignored its operation.

This institution can mark a milestone in how to regulate discourse on the Internet. It could also be a perfect excuse for Facebook management to exonerate itself from responsibility for the most serious cases on its platform. Trump’s output is the loudest. Mark Zuckerberg promised to accept the Security Council resolution.

Facebook has opened the door to the committee, allowing it to make decisions from other platforms and to become the main court of Internet speech. At present, no other platform has announced any cooperation attempts. On the contrary, Twitter has launched birdwatch, which is a tool to better control what is said to a group of users on the network, such as Wikipedia.

You can follow retinal technology in this country on Facebook, twitter, instagram, or subscribe to our newsletters here.