Can the Oversight Board force Facebook to comply with its rules?

The Oversight Board of Facebook has finally issued a very important decision so far: whether Donald Trump’s “permanent” suspension should be permanent. Except, that alone kind of he made a decision.

Mu , the commission said, while agreeing to Facebook’s first call to suspend Trump, did not agree with the situation, and that the company would be the one to decide whether Trump should return to the platform. As a result, once again, the future of Donald Trump’s Facebook account is in the air. Social networking sites, Nick Clegg, has six months to make up his mind. It can be withdrawn further if requested by the Oversight Board to make it the second time – something that committee members easily realized was possible.

Not surprisingly, not everyone was happy with this. “Real Facebook Oversight Board,” the team said , said the election “was an attempt to make everything happen.” “Today’s opinion suggests that the Facebook Oversight Board’s attempts have failed,” he wrote .

For its part, the Oversight Board has stated that its lack of a law on Trump should send a strong message to Facebook. “By using an unstable and unlimited punishment and sending the matter to the Board for resolution, Facebook wants to avoid its responsibilities,” he wrote. “The council has rejected Facebook’s request and pressured Facebook to use it and impose sanctions.” In other words: when it comes to Trump, Facebook needs to clean up its messes.

Trump’s distraction

No matter what you think of the Oversight Board, this idea seems to have shocked almost everyone. Some wondered if the agency was responding to the widespread criticism that the agency only provided confidentiality on Facebook. Posting more complex and other “borderline” cases to the group is a good way for Facebook to avoid making difficult and unpleasant decisions (especially those that can re-evaluate the review).

Facebook, naturally, does not agree. “We are trying to keep the decisions that Facebook considers as a business company to our entire account and make them public and accountable to an independent organization,” Clegg said. following the committee’s decision.

But the Oversight Board’s idea of ​​retaliating against Facebook speaks to a crisis that is only deeper than Trump. One of the most important things Oversight Board has done in its 12,000 words is that Facebook is not really good at setting its own standards, especially when it comes to politicians and other celebrities.

In a press conference, both Oversight Board executives, Michale McConnell and Helle Thorning-Schmidt, repeatedly criticized Facebook’s ability to use its policies in a transparent manner. “The Oversight Board is telling Facebook that they can’t just make new unwritten rules when they follow them,” Thorning-Schmidt said. McConnell said Trump’s suspension is just one example of Facebook’s “self-defense,” given that the agency has received more than 20,000 requests from users, many of whom do not understand social media ideas or action against their accounts.

Disrupting Facebook

Just talking about holes in Facebook’s mindset just goes a long way, however. The company has been for years (in most cases, ) is accused of making his own Trump-affiliated policies or of avoiding political elections. That the Oversight Board is now reviewing some of that does not really change.

But the group is more likely to adopt Facebook rules, including the way they deal with Trump. In addition to the options / options available, the panel also provides feedback on the case. Contrary to many of these challenges, Facebook is not forced to do what the group says, but needs to respond and explain.

These are ideas that the governing body hopes to initiate change. On the issue of Trump’s suspension, it offered a number of suggestions. Among them:

• Facebook must “publicly disclose the rules it uses when imposing penalties on those who have access to it.”

• “If Facebook uses a special system that is available to users, it should be registered.”

• “Facebook needs to explain in Community Standards and Guidelines how its protests and sanctions tend to ban profiles, pages, groups and accounts on Facebook and Instagram in a clear, concise, and accessible manner.”

• “Facebook must refuse to be pressured by governments to crack down on political opponents. In an effort to address political rhetoric from the main users, Facebook must intensify its efforts to reduce this for language and political professionals as well as political and economic protection and inappropriate persuasion.”

• “If the records of prominent users can be dangerous, as enlightened on global standards, Facebook must take action to comply with its rules urgently.”

• “Facebook needs to reconsider all its possible explanations for the electoral fraud and the controversy that escalated the violence that ended the violence in the United States on January 6, 2021. This should reflect the views and opinions that Facebook has adopted that could lead to its platform being persecuted.”

But Facebook has already indicated that it wants a complete disagreement. In making its decision, the council said the company had failed to answer a number of key questions, including a number of comments on its claims.

For example, the agency said Facebook could not answer key questions about how News feeds or other Facebook posts could promote Trump’s posts, or whether the company wants to investigate “decisions made in connection with the January 6, 2021 election.” Trump, including Facebook’s role in failing to ban it .

Similarly, the commission said Facebook had also refused to answer questions about how it supported other politicians, as well as whether it was “linked to political offices or affiliates of Mr. Trump’s suspension accounts,” or whether the suspension affected political advertising. According to the agency, Facebook said some of these requests were “unnecessary” according to the rules governing the Oversight Board.

All of this, moreover, raises questions about how Facebook wants Oversight Board to have it. Company support for the electorate, its policies on political advertising and its consequences are some of the most important issues currently facing them. If Facebook did not want to answer questions about these topics, it seems unlikely that it would accept a change in all Oversight Board rules.

In addition, Facebook already has a mixed history in response to organizational ideas. So far, the company has only submitted responses to the board. And although it said it was “committed to action” in a number of areas, it did . If it refuses to commit to the issue, there will be further evidence that Oversight Board’s main critics are right: they will not be able to control Facebook afterwards.