Less than two weeks before the inauguration of Donald Trump Meta announced To his procedures for the moderation of the content, it was reported on behalf of Mark Zuckerberg and a small group of consultants. Among those who found it by surprise, there was its own advice on the supervision of the company, an independent organization created by META to help form its most confidential political decisions. Currently, the group seeks to study these changes, and at the same time will check the application of their own powers.
Changes in META accepted to radically change how the company provides content on Facebook, Instagram and Threads. He ended his program for verifying the facts in the United States and refused the rules of the hatred that protected immigrants and users of the LGBTK in their applications. Unlike its previously proactive approach, he also reoriented his content moderation procedures, so many types of publications that violate the rules will be removed only if other users report them.
The changes raised questions about the role of the advice of the supervision that was created, Zuckerberg once said, because “Facebook should not make so many important decisions about the freedom of expression and security on their own.” If this is what Meta is doing now, critics asked what exactly the meaning of the supposedly independent council for supervision?
But the supervision council is already working on the decision of META’s rewritten “hated behavior” policy, according to Paolo Caroza, a member of the Board of Directors, who spoke with Engadget. When Tsuckerberg announced the changes in early January, the board already had four open cases related to the rules of performance on the hatred of meta. The board currently plans to use these cases to study new politicians who were rewritten Use a dehumanizing language to describe immigrants and accusations of LGBT people of mentally ill.
“We deliberately postponed the decision of these cases after January 7, just so that we could return to Meta and ask a new round of questions,” said Angazhet, a professor of law in a note, who joined the advice of supervision in 2022. “We try as much as possible to use the tools that we must find out to find out more information, bring great transparency and great confidence in how it will play in practice.”
According to Carozza, the council already had briefings with META, since it is pushing more information about the new haters' policy. But this may be some more time before his conclusions are published. Open cases are devoted to several aspects of the rules of the hateful statement of Meta, including IN IN And Field
In addition to the issues related to each case, the Carosetz said that the board also encounters how to set priorities in decision -making, given the renewable importance of the basic policy. “There are competing fears about the quick and effective, and not to be more thoughtful and advisory,” he said.
But while the board may hope to ensure greater transparency regarding META decision -making, it is not clear how much the board of directors ultimately affect. According to his rules, META is required only to fulfill the solutions of the group related to individual posts. Recommendations on the policy of the board are not binding, and META has When implementing their proposals.
It is also unclear how the board can weigh other changes in META, for example, closing the facts verification programs or disconnect the proactive moderation of content. “We very much criticized this program for verifying the fact in general, but our usual cases make it difficult to the occurrence of this problem, because it does not arise in the process of appeal in the framework that we receive,” says the Carosa. The board, he notes, could write a political advisory opinion, as with the rules around And met Rules for celebrities. But the board is only authorized to make such non -binding recommendations on the request of META.
It falls into one of Council of supervision: it can work independently, but META ultimately dictates how much it can possess. “It would be unrealistic to expect that the standard of value and success of the board of directors is that meta, in 100% of cases, does everything that we are telling them,” says the Karozets, “we are one part of a complex puzzle for responsibility and supervision.”
Nevertheless, the fact that the group was not consulted against such large political moves raised some uncomfortable issues for the rule. Dozens of civil society groups recently signed Encouraging members of the board of directors to resign in protest. IN For Tsuckerberg, some members of the Congress said that the board “has become toothless” when Meta refuses to follow his principles.
Karozzo recognizes the restrictions on the advice of supervision, but says that billions of people in META applications will ultimately intervene, where he can intervene. “If everyone could resign, the only people who would lose are the final users of META, especially those who are in particularly vulnerable situations (and) communities around the world.”