from the we'll-give-these-recommendations-the-attention-we-feel-they-deserve dept.
The board found numerous flaws in Facebook's moderation rules for celebs and and VIPs :
More than a year after Meta asked the Oversight Board to weigh in on its cross-check rules, the group has finally published its full policy advisory on the topic. The board found that the program, which creates a separate content moderation process for certain high-profile users, prioritizes the company's business over the rights of its users.
"In our review, we found several shortcomings in Meta's cross-check program," the board writes in its assessment. "While Meta told the Board that cross-check aims to advance Meta's human rights commitments, we found that the program appears more directly structured to satisfy business concerns." Notably, the critique echoes that of whistleblower Frances Haugen, who revealed explosive details about cross-check last year, and has said that Meta "chooses profits over safety."
Cross-check, or xcheck, is an internal program at Facebook and Instagram that shields celebrities, politicians, and other high-profile users from the company's automated content moderation systems. Meta has characterized it as a "second layer of review" to avoid mistakenly removing posts. But disclosures made by Haugen showed the program includes millions of accounts, and has enabled billions of views on posts that would have otherwise been taken down. The Oversight Board itself has accused Meta of being not "fully forthcoming" about the program, which was a central issue in the board's handling of the suspension of former President Donald Trump.
[...] The Oversight Board is similarly critical of other "business" factors that play a role in Meta's cross-check rules. For example, it says Meta skews toward under-enforcement of cross-checked content due to the "perception of censorship" and the effect it could have on the company. "The Board interprets this to mean that, for business reasons, addressing the 'perception of censorship' may take priority over other human rights responsibilities relevant for content moderation," the group writes.
[...] In total the Oversight Board came up with 32 detailed recommendations, which Meta will now have 90 days to respond to. As with other policy suggestions from the board, the company isn't obligated to implement any of its suggestions, though it is expected to respond to each one.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
Previously: Facebook's New Whistleblower is Renewing Scrutiny of the Social Media Giant
Related Stories
Facebook's new whistleblower is renewing scrutiny of the social media giant
The leaker came forward:
Facebook Whistleblower Frances Haugen: The 60 Minutes Interview (13m36s video)
Facebook's new whistleblower is renewing scrutiny of the social media giant
A data scientist named Frances Haugen has revealed herself to be the whistleblower behind a massive exposure of the inner workings at Facebook.
Prior to appearing on 60 Minutes on Sunday, Haugen, a former employee at the social media giant, kept her identity a secret after sharing thousands of pages of internal Facebook documents to the media and federal law enforcement.
[...] Haugen's document dump, her testimony scheduled in front of Congress this week, and an ongoing investigative reporting series into the company are potentially pushing Facebook into its biggest crisis yet. The negative spotlight also comes as Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill are increasingly scrutinizing Facebook's actions.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Captival on Monday December 12, @04:42AM (7 children)
They aren't censoring people we don't like enough. Rando faceless employees at social media companies should be able to arbitrarily determine what you're allowed to say on the internet. That's just common sense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12, @05:57AM (6 children)
Rando faceless employees determine what you can say on their site. The internet is slightly bigger. I don't know why people think there is only one channel on the TV. Besides, your ISP has much more control than some wimpy social media site. As long as you're compliant, it all seems much more open than it is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12, @07:40AM (5 children)
While factually correct, your statement misses the fact that "the internet" consists of between 6 and 24 sites, for most people. And, Facebook is central to all of that, for many people.
Perhaps. My ISP doesn't know where I go online. Does yours? Maybe you should invest in a VPN or something? Is your traffic even encrypted? I mean, if you're still sending electronic smoke signals into the open air, sure, your ISP can interfere with the smoke signals. If you're making any attempt to keep up with technology, then not so much.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Opportunist on Monday December 12, @09:05AM (3 children)
All a VPN does in this case is replace "ISP" with "VPN provider" as the single point of knowing everything about your surfing habits.
Why do people not notice that, I wonder?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12, @02:04PM (1 child)
> Why do people not notice that, I wonder?
oooh, I want mod points back.
Here's a virtual Touche +1.
(Score: 2) by Sourcery42 on Monday December 12, @06:05PM
I'd give you a Funny, but I'm hoarding the few points I have left
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 12, @03:25PM
Sounds like in this case the user is the VPN provider.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 14, @04:41AM
Yes, that is their personal choice... Gotta be in the"in" crowd... Facebook certainly can't be blamed
Heh, you really believe that? You really think a VPN is trustworthy? Yeah, they're great for getting around firewalls, but please, don't think for a second you're not being tracked.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 12, @04:50AM (3 children)
https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a19490586/mark-zuckerberg-called-people-who-handed-over-their-data-dumb-f/ [esquire.com]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Monday December 12, @02:42PM (2 children)
Yup...and Zuck has never refuted that chat log. That tells you everything you need to know about him.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday December 12, @05:55PM (1 child)
When it's the truth, the best you can do is try to bury it.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday December 13, @04:16AM
Nonsense.
If that were true politics as we know it wouldn't exist.
(Score: 2) by Rich on Monday December 12, @10:01AM (2 children)
Generally, whenever you read about "Human Rights" in the media, you can completely exchange these two words for "Business Concerns" and are closer to the truth. They never get mentioned when big money isn't affected or would be negatively affected.
But this oversight board is weird, if they think "human rights" means their "freedom to censor".
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday December 12, @05:03PM (1 child)
Human Rights don't pay the bills or line the pockets for increasing shareholder value.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 2) by Rich on Monday December 12, @07:18PM
But they prepare the field for harvesting shareholder value. It's a small investment towards a long term goal. Most important are the freedom of press (to purchase media campaigns), the right to vote (to get ones puppets into power after the media campaigns have worked), and the right for public protests (to stage a riot if the media campaigns don't work). End goal is the right to run a private business for the corporations to siphon off what's to be had. This is particularly popular in countries with untapped or nationalized natural resources. Yet you never hear anything about human rights e.g. in a certain asian city-state, which is a poster example for a well implemented fascist system with a truly dystopian surveillance infrastructure. I guess there are no resources worth of exploiting, but very liberal banking regulations.... ;)