Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Facebook announced an initial commitment of $130 million to launch its new Oversight Board, which is designed as a way for users to appeal the social giant’s content decisions, but the entity is behind schedule with initial board members to be announced in 2020.

The Oversight Board — which has been dubbed Facebook’s “Supreme Court” — will have the ability to make binding decisions independently of CEO Mark Zuckerberg or anyone else at Facebook. It’s set to launch in the first half of 2020, comprised of staff and board members independent of the company.

(https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/facebook-130-million-f...)



Not dystopian or absurd, at all. It's like a tobacco company sponsored research lab to determine if nicotine is addictive.


Almost always Facebook does not care about the outcome of content moderation decisions. It does not meaningly affect ad revenue, but it's a huge driver of bad press. They want to externalise it as much as possible.


I think in this case they would actually stand to gain if they could just say "whelp, you heard the board, unban his account. sorry folks, nothing we can do, our hands are tied"


As long as there has been democracy corporations have had oversight over controlling mass communications. What is happening now is not new or different.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/time-private-us-media...


The classic quip to this end is something like: "freedom of the press is a freedom only available to people who own a press."


No, it's not. This isn't about addiction, that's a different conversation. This is about a private company trying to do a better job of moderating what are very nuanced and important situations: what is acceptable behaviour on their private platform ("in their home") and what is not acceptable behaviour.


The problem is Facebook is only going to ask for help if they don't care about the verdict.

If one of the possible answers is bad for business then what?


Users can appeal content moderation decisions to the board themselves: https://www.oversightboard.com/appeals-process/


The comment you’re replying to is not trying to make the discussion about addiction. They are pointing out the absurdity of expecting a corporation to self-regulate itself in any meaningful way.

This Oversight Board is likely nothing more than a manufactured authority figure designed to sway public opinion by deflecting responsibility away from Facebook in regards to censorship. Don’t be surprised when this Oversight Board comes out in full support of how Facebook handled the situation.


"comprised of staff and board members independent of the company"

Independent in what sense?

Do we know for sure that they and their families don't own any Facebook stock and are not associated with Facebook employees/owners?

Just as important, how do they get on to be on Facebook's "Supreme Court"?

I presume they're not elected by Facebook users and don't actually represent them in any tangible sense, so whose interests do they represent?


It sort of reminds me of an HR panel - there to protect the company, not the user.


130 million?!

Why would such a thing cost so much?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: