The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Longer article: Facebook's controversial 40-member 'independent, neutral supreme court' Archived Message

    Posted by margo on May 7, 2020, 1:16 pm, in reply to "Alan Rusbridger: Why I'm joining Facebook's oversight committee "

    -- Which 'left' and 'left-wing' is referred to, here? Alan Rusbridger = 'left'?
    -- 'Hate speech'? Could interpretation of this definition apply to criticism of certain countries or entities?


    REVEALED: 20 members of Facebook's $130M 'independent supreme court' who promise to be 'politically neutral'

    Former Lib Dem MP Nick Clegg is now head of public affairs at Facebook

    -- The first half of the 40-member panel was announced by Facebook Wednesday
    -- Board will rule on tough decisions about what content is allowed or removed
    -- Twitter users were quick to point out that many of the panel have 'leftist' beliefs
    -- This could be content involving issues such as nudity, violence or hate speech

    DailyMail -- FACEBOOK faces a storm over the make-up of its new 'politically neutral' supreme court after it was swamped with left-wing luminaries from across the globe including an anti-Trump campaigner who poked fun at his teenage son.

    Critics have accused Mark Zuckerberg of 'blowing' his chance of setting up a 'meaningful' and 'politically balanced' oversight committee for the social media giant because so few of its 20 members have conservative credentials.

    Facebook will pay $130 million over the next six years to establish their court and cover supreme court salaries and their staff, as well as office space and a new HR team.

    Americans dominate Facebook's supreme court, with five U.S.-based members, including Trump impeachment witness Pamela Karlan, who made the president's son Barron, 14, the butt of a joke about a president's powers during her testimony.

    Another member is Alan Rusbridger, the former editor of the left-leaning Guardian newspaper, which was chosen by Edward Snowden to publicise his NSA leaks and campaigned against the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States.

    He has recently argued that US TV should stop live broadcasting President Trump's White House press conferences and said last night he had taken the job because of 'a crisis of free expression' in the world and that he can help the 'independent, external oversight' of Facebook.

    Michael McConnell, a university law professor and former US federal judge, Jamal Greene, a Columbia Law professor who focuses on constitutional rights adjudication and Evelyn Aswad, a University of Oklahoma College of Law professor who formerly served as a senior State Department lawyer, are also among the 20 panel members.

    McConnell, Greene, Denmark's first female prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt and Colombian attorney Catalina Botero-Marino make up the panel's four co-chairs. The co-chairs were tasked with selecting the other members of the panel.

    Twitter users were quick to point out that many of the panel are left-wingers. And Rusbridger's appointment has been blasted by a British MP as 'failing miserably to provide confidence in the board's political balance'.

    Scroll down for the full list of members.

    The board was first proposed by Facebook co-founder and chief Mark Zuckerberg in 2018, and the California-based internet giant has set up a foundation to fund it


    The 20 members of Facebook's 'Supreme Court'

    Co-chairs:

    Catalina Botero Marino - A former U.N. special rapporteur for freedom of expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States who now serves as dean of the Universidad de los Andes Faculty of Law.

    Jamal Greene - A Columbia Law professor who focuses on constitutional rights adjudication and the structure of legal and constitutional argument.

    Michael McConnell - A former U.S. federal circuit judge who is now a constitutional law professor at Stanford, an expert on religious freedom, and a Supreme Court advocate who has represented clients in a wide range of First Amendment cases involving freedom of speech, religion and association.

    Helle Thorning-Schmidt - A former prime minister of Denmark who repeatedly took stands for free expression while in office and then served as CEO of Save the Children.

    Members, chosen by the co-chairs:

    Afia Asantewaa Asare-Kyei - A human rights advocate who works on women's rights, media freedom and access to information issues across Africa at the Open Society Initiative for West Africa.

    Evelyn Aswad - A University of Oklahoma College of Law professor who formerly served as a senior State Department lawyer and specializes in the application of international human rights standards to content moderation issues.

    Endy Bayuni     - A journalist who twice served as the editor-in-chief of The Jakarta Post, and helps direct a journalists' association that promotes excellence in the coverage of religion and spirituality.

    Katherine Chen - A communications scholar at the National Chengchi University who studies social media, mobile news and privacy, and a former national communications regulator in Taiwan.

    Nighat Dad - A digital rights advocate who offers digital security training to women in Pakistan and across South Asia to help them protect themselves against online harassment, campaigns against government restrictions on dissent, and received the Human Rights Tulip Award.

    Pamela Karlan     - A Stanford Law professor and Supreme Court advocate who has represented clients in voting rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and First Amendment cases, and serves as a member of the board of the American Constitution Society. Karlan had been asked to describe the differences between a U.S. president and a king during Trump's impeachment hearing when she brought up the first son's name. 'The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he can't make him a baron,' Karlan told lawmakers. She later apologized.

    Tawakkol Karman - A Nobel Peace Prize laureate who used her voice to promote nonviolent change in Yemen during the Arab Spring, and was named as one of 'History's Most Rebellious Women' by Time magazine.

    Maina Kiai - A director of Human Rights Watch's Global Alliances and Partnerships Program and a former U.N. special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association who has decades of experience advocating for human rights in Kenya.

    Sudhir Krishnaswamy - A vice chancellor of the National Law School of India University who co-founded an advocacy organization that works to advance constitutional values for everyone, including LGBTQ+ and transgender persons, in India.

    Ronaldo Lemos - A technology, intellectual property and media lawyer who co-created a national internet rights law in Brazil, co-founded a nonprofit focused on technology and policy issues, and teaches law at the Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.

    Julie Owono - A digital rights and anti-censorship advocate who leads Internet Sans Frontières and campaigns against internet censorship in Africa and around the world.

    Emi Palmor - A former director general of the Israeli Ministry of Justice who led initiatives to address racial discrimination, advance access to justice via digital services and platforms and promote diversity in the public sector.

    Alan Rusbridger - A former editor-in-chief of The Guardian who transformed the newspaper into a global institution and oversaw its Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the Edward Snowden disclosures.

    András Sajó - A former judge and vice president of the European Court of Human Rights who is an expert in free speech and comparative constitutionalism.

    John Samples - A public intellectual who writes extensively on social media and speech regulation, advocates against restrictions on online expression, and helps lead a libertarian think tank.

    Nicolas Suzor - A Queensland University of Technology Law School professor who focuses on the governance of social networks and the regulation of automated systems, and has published a book on internet governance.

    Facebook public policy director Brent Harris yesterday described creation of the board as the 'beginning of a fundamental change in the way some of the most difficult content decisions on Facebook will be made.'

    The Telegraph reported that a member of the U.K. Parliament's committee on Culture, Media, and Sport, MP Damian Green, said: 'Globally, Facebook is much more important than any newspaper or broadcaster, so it has a consequent responsibility to demonstrate it is open to a range of views.'

    However, Facebook's board director Thomas Hughes said during a phone briefing said: 'This is a group that has a diverse set of insights, backgrounds, and beliefs but share a deep commitment to advancing human rights and freedom of expression.'

    Tawakkol Abdel-Salam Karman, a Yemeni activist who became Nobel Peace Prize laureate described by Time Magaizine as one of 'History's Most Rebellious Women', is among the other big names on the 20-strong list.

    Despite Hughes' comments, however, there is no prominent expert in the study of disinformation, something Facebook has been heavily criticized for giving a platform to in the past.

    Some free expression and internet governance experts told Reuters they thought the board's first members were a diverse, impressive group, though some were concerned it was too heavy on U.S. members.

    Of the 20 members announced so far, at least five are America. No other country has more than one member representing them on the panel, although Facebook pointed out that collectively, the members have lived in 27 countries and speak at least 29 languages.

    Facebook said one reason for the panel's U.S. focus was that some of its hardest decisions or appeals in recent years had begun in America.

    'I don't feel like they made any daring choices,' said Jillian C. York, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's director of international freedom of expression.

    David Kaye, U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, said the board's efficacy would be shown when it started hearing cases.

    'The big question,' he said, 'will be, are they taking questions that might result in decisions, or judgments as this is a court, that go against Facebook's business interests?'

    The board is to be expanded to 40 members. It remained unclear when the board would start hearing cases due to restrictions on gathering or traveling caused by the deadly coronavirus pandemic.

    Board members have met virtually and training has started, according to Hughes.

    It remained unclear when the board would start hearing cases due to restrictions on gathering or travelling caused by the deadly coronavirus pandemic - or how much, exactly, they will be paid.

    The board was first proposed by Facebook co-founder and chief Mark Zuckerberg in 2018, and the California-based internet giant has set up a foundation to fund it operating as an independent entity, Harris said.

    'As the world lives through a global health crisis, social media has become a lifeline for helping people and communities to stay connected,,' the board said in a blog post.

    'At the same time, we know that social media can spread speech that is hateful, harmful and deceitful. In recent years, the question of what content should stay up or come down, and who should decide this, has become increasingly urgent for society.'

    Hughes said he was open to the board serving as an arbiter of disputes for other social media firms such as Twitter but that, for now, the focus is on filling its roster and getting into action on cases about Facebook or Instagram posts.

    Facebook will implement the board's decisions, unless they violate law, and 'respond' to guidance on policies, according to Harris.

    The board said it will decide whether disputed posts comply with Facebook and Instagram policies and 'values' as well as freedom of expression within the framework of international norms of human rights regardless of the social network's corporate interests.

    The board will make decisions public and report on how well Facebook obeys rulings.

    Zuckerberg has personally assured the board the social network will abide by its decisions, according to co-chair Helle Thorning-Schmidt, a former prime minister of Denmark.

    'We have tried to consider all communities and also people who have been critical of Facebook in the past,' the ex-PM said, who also confirmed that the number of members would rise to 40 over time.

    'This board is not designed to be an echo chamber,' said co-chair Catalina Botero-Marino of the Universidad de los Andes Faculty of Law in Colombia.

    'Facebook would have a very high reputational cost if it doesn't carry out decisions by a body it created to resolve its thorniest problems.'

    Facebook cannot remove members or staff of the board, which is supported by a $130 million irrevocable trust fund.

    'For the first time, an independent body will make final and binding decisions on what stays up and what is removed,' Thorning-Schmidt said.

    'This is a big deal; we are basically building a new model for platform governance.'

    Board co-chair Michael McConnell, a university law professor and former US federal judge, said the expected volume of cases would make it impossible to consider them all.

    Instead, like the US Supreme Court, the board will prioritize content removal cases that can set precedents for how Facebook should handle similar material, according to McConnell.

    'We are going to have to select maybe a few flowers, or maybe they are weeds, from a field of possibilities,' McConnell said. 'We are not the internet police.'

    'Don't think of us as a fast action team that is going to swoop in. Our job is to consider appeals, provide an after-the-fact, deliberative second look.'

    The board plans to first focus on cases affecting large numbers of users; second on cases look to have major effect on public discourse, and then those that effect policy at the platform, he explained.

    The creation of the board has reportedly been in the works since 2018, and is designed to take key policy decisions, which have become points of political contention in recent years, away from Zuckerberg and other Facebook executives.

    In a statement, the company said: 'All Members are committed to free expression, and reflect a wide range of perspectives on how to understand the principle and its limits.

    'Some have expressed concerns with the dangers of imposing restrictions on speech, and allow for only very narrow exceptions. Others make comparatively greater accommodations to a range of competing values, including safety and privacy,' Facebook said.

    HSBC's most senior lawyer has been brought in to a Facebook-backed business trying to launch a digital currency.

    The Libra Association named as its new top executive Stuart Levey, a former US Treasury official who headed team fighting financial crime.

    Levey, who has most recently been chief legal officer at HSBC Holdings based in London, will lead the group founded by Facebook to manage a global digital payments system.

    Levey, who turns 57 in June, will work in Washington for the Geneva-based association beginning this summer.



    Nick Clegg, former British MP and ex-leader of the country's Liberal Democrat party before becoming Facebook's head of global affairs, told Reuters in a Skype interview the board's composition was important but that its credibility would be earned over time.

    'I don't expect people to say, 'Oh hallelujah, these are great people, this is going to be a great success' - there's no reason anyone should believe that this is going to be a great success until it really starts hearing difficult cases in the months and indeed years to come,' he said.

    The board will start work immediately and Clegg said it would begin hearing cases this summer.

    The board, which will grow to about 40 members and which Facebook has pledged $130 million to fund for at least six years, will make public, binding decisions on controversial cases where users have exhausted Facebook's usual appeals process.

    The company can also refer significant decisions to the board, including on ads or on Facebook groups. The board, in turn, can make policy recommendations to Facebook based on case decisions, to which the company will publicly respond.

    'We are not the internet police, don't think of us as sort of a fast-action group that's going to swoop in and deal with rapidly moving problems,' co-chair McConnell told reporters on a conference call.

    The board's case decisions must be made and implemented within 90 days, though Facebook can ask for a 30-day review for exceptional cases.

    Initially, the board will focus on cases where content was removed and Facebook expects it to take on only 'dozens' of cases to start, a small percentage of the thousands it expects will be brought to the board.

    Some members of the board have advocated against the tight regulation of online expression. John Samples, vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, has praised Facebook's decision not to remove a doctored video of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, while Sajo has warned against allowing the 'offended' to have too much influence in the debate around online expression.
    Former Lib Dem MP Nick Clegg is now head of public affairs at Facebook
    +9


    What to know about Facebook's content oversight board

    WHAT WILL THE OVERSIGHT BOARD REVIEW?

    The board, which some have dubbed Facebook's 'Supreme Court,' will rule on whether some individual pieces of content should be displayed on the site. It can also recommend changes to Facebook's content policy, based on a case decision or at the company's request.

    At first, the board will review posts, videos, photos and comments that the company has decided to remove from Facebook or its photo-sharing site Instagram, but eventually it will handle cases where content was left up.

    This could be content involving issues such as nudity, violence or hate speech. Facebook has said the board's remit will in future include ads, groups, pages, profiles and events, but has not given a time frame.

    It will not deal with Instagram direct messages, Facebook's messaging platforms WhatsApp, Messenger, its dating service or its Oculus virtual reality products.

    Facebook expects the board will initially take on only 'dozens' of cases, a small percentage of the thousands it expects will eventually be brought to the board. In 2019, users appealed more than 10 million pieces of content that Facebook removed or took action on.

    But Facebook's head of global affairs, Nick Clegg, told Reuters he thought the cases chosen would have a wider relevance to patterns of content disputes.

    HOW WILL THE BOARD WORK?

    The board will decide which cases it reviews, which can be referred either by a user who has exhausted Facebook's normal appeals process or by Facebook itself for cases that might be 'significant and difficult.'

    Users who disagree with Facebook's final decision on their content will have 15 days to submit a case to the board through the board's website.

    Each case will be reviewed by a panel of five members, with at least one from the same geographic region as the case originated. The panel can ask for subject matter experts to help make its decision, which then must be finalized by the whole board.

    The board's case decision - which is binding unless it could violate the law - must be made and implemented within 90 days, though Facebook can ask for a 30-day expedited review for exceptional cases, including those with 'urgent real-world consequences.'

    Users will be notified of the board's ruling on their case and the board will publicly publish the decision.

    When the board gives policy recommendations, Facebook will give public updates and publish a response on the guidance and follow-on action within 30 days.

    For more details on the board's operations, see Facebook's proposed bylaws.

    WHO IS ON THE OVERSIGHT BOARD?

    The board will eventually have about 40 members.

    Facebook chose the four co-chairs - former U.S. federal circuit judge Michael McConnell and constitutional law expert Jamal Greene from the United States, Colombian attorney Catalina Botero-Marino and former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt - who then jointly selected the other 16 members named so far.

    Some were sourced from the global consultations conducted by Facebook to obtain feedback on the oversight board.

    The members, who will be part-time, so far include constitutional law experts, civil rights advocates, academics, journalists, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and a former judge of the European Court of Human Rights.

    The members will be paid by a trust that Facebook has created and will serve three-year terms for a maximum of nine years.

    The trustees can remove a member before the end of their term for violating the board's code of conduct, but not for content decisions.

    Thomas Hughes, former executive director for freedom of expression rights group Article 19, has also been appointed to oversee the board's full-time administrative staff.

    Reaction in the U.K.

    British former Liberal Democrat MP leader Sir Nick Clegg, now head of public affairs at Facebook, is said to have been instrumental in the decision to appoint Alan Rusbridger, the ex-editor of the British-based Guardian newspaper.

    A British member of parliament, Andrew Bridgen, told MailOnline: ‘It seems strange that any company which aims to offer services to a population would consistently recruit to positions of considerable responsibility individuals with what are clearly minority political views. It is not only bad practice – it’s also bad business and risks alienating the majority of their customer base’.

    Reacting to claims that Sir Nick Clegg was instrumental in the appointment of Alan Rusbridger he added: ‘I’m always concerned at left wingers having influence – I went into politics to ensure they are not in government’.

    Tory MP Damian Green, a member of the UK's Culture, Media, and Sport commitee told the Telegraph: 'Globally, Facebook is much more important than any newspaper or broadcaster, so it has a consequent responsibility to demonstrate it is open to a range of views.'

    Fellow Conservative Andrew Bridgen called the new board 'bad practice' and 'bad business' that 'risks alienating the majority of their customer base' while Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski said: 'It is important that any organisation, be it a global corporate or local government, benefits from a plurality of views which are reflective of the societies in which they operate.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8296135/20-members-Facebooks-130M-independent-supreme-court.html

    Message Thread: