Watchdog or distraction? – KIRO 7 Information Seattle

Facebook’s board of directors, which on Wednesday upheld former President Donald Trump’s ban, also had some tough words for the company. The board called Facebook’s indefinite ban on Trump a “vague, standard punishment” and accused Facebook – its corporate sponsor – of “escaping its responsibilities” by asking its quasi-independent oversight group to resolve the issue.

However, critics are not convinced that the board’s decision represents a triumph of independence or accountability. Indeed, many see the narrow focus on one-off content issues as a distraction from deeper problems like the massive power of Facebook, its shady algorithms that can aggravate hate and misinformation, and more serious and complicated questions about government regulation.

“It’s a lot easier to talk about Donald Trump” than Facebook’s business, said Rashad Robinson, president of Color Of Change, a longtime critic of Facebook about freedom of speech rather than algorithms that reinforce certain types of content, which has nothing to do with freedom of speech. “

The board, Robinson said, is “a ploy to fend off regulatory action.”

After months of deliberation and nearly 10,000 public comments on the matter, the board’s decision on Trump told Facebook to state how long his account would be suspended, stating that Trump’s “indefinite” ban was unreasonable. The ruling, which gives Facebook six months to comply, is effectively postponing any possible reinstatement of Trump, placing responsibility for that decision directly back on the company.

“You made the right choice,” said Yael Eisenstat, a former CIA officer who served six months in 2018 as Facebook’s global head of election integrity operations for political advertising and is now researcher at Betalab.

But the focus on the supervisory process, she said, gives Facebook exactly what it wants. “We divert our time, attention, and energy from the more important discussion of how to hold the company accountable for its own tools, designs, and business decisions that have helped spread dangerous conspiracy theories,” she said.

Facebook said it made it publicly clear that the oversight body is not a substitute for regulation.

“We have set up the independent oversight body to exercise accountability and control over our actions,” the company said in a statement. “It is the first of its kind in the world: an expert-run independent organization empowered to impose binding decisions on a private social media company.”

A major cause of concern among Facebook critics: the board of directors reported that the company refused to answer detailed questions about how its technical characteristics and ad-based business model could also fuel extremism. The Public Citizen monitoring group said it was worrying that Facebook, for example, declined to say how its newsfeed affected the visibility of Trump’s posts.

“Not everyone sees what individual posts are, so the algorithms decide who sees them, how they see them, when they see them, and Facebook probably has all kinds of information about engagement levels,” said Robert Weissman, president of the company Group. “The company owes all of us post-mortem for the way Facebook is used and operated. Did it reinforce what Trump said and add to the insurgency?”

Another concern: How Facebook’s actions are resonating overseas. The board checks whether Facebook’s decisions comply with international human rights standards and the company’s own guidelines.

“The question everyone is asking is whether Facebook is in a lucrative market and facing a political leader who incites violence. Will Facebook choose human rights and human security beyond the bottom line?” said Chinmayi Arun, a collaborator on the Yale Law School’s Information Society Project. “It is fair to say that a former US president is not the only world leader who incites violence.”

Facebook set up the board of directors to rule on sensitive content after widespread criticism of the misuse of misinformation, hate speech and nefarious influence campaigns on its platform. The Trump decision was the board’s 10th since it began handling cases late last year. The nine previous decisions of the Chamber tended to favor freedom of expression over restriction of content.

The company finances the board through an “independent trust”. The 20 members, which will eventually grow to 40, include a former Danish Prime Minister, the former editor-in-chief of the Guardian newspaper, and legal scholars, human rights experts and journalists. The first four board members were selected directly by Facebook. These four then worked with Facebook to select additional members.

Facebook’s most prominent critics – including misinformation researchers, academics and activists – are missing from the list.

“These are very smart and capable people who sit on this board,” said Robinson. But he said, “The board of directors is made up of a group of Mark Zuckerberg advisors. He hired them, he paid for them, and he can get rid of them if he wants.”

Board spokesman Dex Hunter-Torricke called on the critics to judge the board based on its decisions.

“This is not a group of people who feel obliged to be gentle with the company,” said Hunter-Torricke, who previously served as speechwriter for Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO. In Wednesday’s decision, he added, “The board has made it very clear that Facebook has broken the rules, as has Mr. Trump, and that is inappropriate.”

___

Associate press writer David Klepper contributed to this story.