How Facebook undercut the Oversight Board
Open in browser Here’s your edition of Platformer for the week — a reported piece on the growing conflict between Facebook and its Oversight Board. I’m able to do this journalism because of the small fraction of readers who pay. If you value independent, ad-free journalism that explores the intersection of tech and democracy, I hope you’ll consider contributing today. Join now and you can come hang out with us in our chatty Discord server, where today we all got together and watched the Google I/O keynote together. 👉 How Facebook undercut the Oversight BoardWhat really happened between the company and the board over Russia and UkraineToday let’s talk about the highest-profile conflict to date between Meta and its Oversight Board, an independent organization the company established to help it navigate the most difficult questions related to policy and content moderation. Since before the board was created, it has faced criticism that it primarily serves a public-relations function for the company formerly known as Facebook. The board relies on funding from Meta, it has a contractual relationship with it governing its use of user data, and its founding members were hand-picked by the company. Aiding in the perception that it’s mostly a PR project is the fact that to date, Meta and the board have rarely been in conflict. In the first quarter of its existence, of 18 recommendations the board made to Meta, the company implemented 14. And even though it often rules against Facebook’s content moderators, ordering removed posts to be restored, none of those reversals has generate any significant controversy. (Also, from Facebook’s perspective, the more the board reverses it, the more credible it is, and thus the more blame it can shoulder for any unpopular calls.) That’s what made statements published by both sides today so noteworthy. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February, Meta had asked the board to issue an advisory opinion on how it should moderate content during wartime. The conflict had raised a series of difficult questions, including under what circumstances users can post photos of dead bodies or videos of prisoners of war criticizing the conflict. And in the most prominent content moderation question of the invasion to date, Meta decided to temporarily permit calls for violence against Russian soldiers, Vladimir Putin, and others. All of which raised important questions about the balance between free expression and user safety. But after asking the board to weigh in, Meta changed its mind — and asked board members to say nothing at all.
In response, the board said in a statement that it is “disappointed” by the move:
Both statements were extremely vague, so I spent the day talking with people familiar with the matter who could fill me in on what happened. Here’s what I’ve learned. One of the most disturbing trends of the past year has been the way that authoritarian governments in general, and Russia in particular, have used the intimidation of employees on the ground to force platforms to do their bidding. Last fall, Apple and Google both removed from their respective stores an app that enabled anti-Putin forces to organize before an election. In the aftermath, we learned that Russian agents had threatened their employees, in person, with jail time or worse. Life for those employees — and their families — has only become more difficult since Putin’s invasion. The country passed draconian laws outlawing truthful discussion of the war, and the combination of those laws and sanctions from the United States and Europe has forced many platforms to withdraw services from Russia entirely. In the wake of Meta’s decision to allow calls for violence against the invaders, Russia labeled it an “extremist” organization. That potentially put hundreds of Meta employees at risk of being jailed. And while the company has now successfully removed its employees from the country, the extremism designation could mean that they will never be allowed to return to the country so long as they work at Meta. Moreover, it could mean that employees’ families in Russia could still be subject to persecution. There is precedent for both outcomes under Russia’s extremism laws. So what does the Oversight Board have to do with it? Meta had asked for a fairly broad opinion about its approach to moderation and Russia. The board has already shown a willingness to make expansive policy recommendations, even on narrower cases submitted by users. After asking for the opinion, the company’s legal and security teams became concerned that anything the board said might somehow be used against employees or their families in Russia, either now or in the future. Technically, the Oversight Board is a distinct entity from Meta. But plenty of Westerners still refuse to recognize that distinction, and company lawyers worried that Russia wouldn’t, either. All of this is compounded by the fact that tech platforms have gotten little to no support to date, from either the United States or the European Union, in their struggles to keep key communication services up and running in Russia and Ukraine. It’s not obvious to me what western democracies could do to reduce platforms’ fears about how Russia might treat employees and their families. But discussions with executives at several big tech companies over the past year have made it clear that they all feel like they’re out on a limb. All that said, today’s news still represents a significant blow to the Oversight Board’s already fragile credibility — and arguably reduces its value to Facebook. The company spent several years and $130 million to create an independent body to advise it on policy matters. To ask that body for its advice — advice that would not even be binding on the company — and then decide belatedly that such advice might be dangerous calls into question the point of the entire enterprise. If the Oversight Board’s only role is to handle the easy questions, why bother with it at all? Facebook and the board declined to comment to me today beyond their statements. It’s fair to note that despite the reversal here, the company has stood up to Russia in some important ways — including standing by that decision to let Ukrainians call for Putin’s death. Meta could have rolled over for Russia on that one, and chose not to. At the same time, once again we find that at a crucial moment, Facebook executives fail to properly understand risk and public perception. Russia has been threatening platform employees since at least last September. Whatever danger there was for employees and their families existed well before the moment that Facebook sought an opinion from its board. To realize that only weeks later … well, talk about an oversight. I’m on record as saying that the Oversight Board has changed Facebook for the better. And when it comes to authoritarians threatening platform employees, tech companies have distressingly few options available to them. The Russia case, in this as in so many other situations, was truly a no-win situation. But that doesn’t mean it won’t have collateral damage for both Meta and its board. Critics always feared that if the stakes ever got high enough, Facebook would blink and decide to make all the relevant decisions itself. And then Vladimir Putin went and invaded his neighbor, and the critics were proven to be right. Google I/OI enjoyed watching Google’s big (two-hour!) keynote today, which focused on the road to building ubiquitous ambient computing. As always, the company’s focus on building utility sets it apart from its rivals, which spend more time on enabling creativity (Apple) or abstractions like “connection” (Meta). David Pierce has a nice overview of the company’s strategy at The Verge. I may have some more to say about I/O tomorrow after I digest it a bit. In the meantime, some of the announcements that caught my eye:
Cool job!The News Literacy Project, which works to educate school-age children about misinformation, disinformation and related issues, is seeking a Spanish-speaking head of communications. Given the proliferation of Spanish-language hoaxes, it’s an important role at a critical time. Get the job and you’ll get to work with friend of Platformer and tech industry legend Walt Mossberg, who serves on the board. Check the posting out here. Governing
Industry
Those good tweetsim a 9/11 last responder, i just arrived on the scene today. looks like it’s already been taken care of 34-year-old on Twitter : “PAW Patrol is copaganda that reinforces America’s role as the global police force and indoctrinates a new generation of children into our collective military fetishization.”
34-year-old not on Twitter : “We’re redoing our bathroom.” Talk to meSend me tips, comments, questions, and advisory opinions: casey@platformer.news. By design, the vast majority of Platformer readers never pay anything for the journalism it provides. But you made it all to the end of this week’s edition — maybe not for the first time. Want to support more journalism like what you read today? If so, click here: |
Key phrases
Older messages
Twitter's meltdown May
Saturday, May 28, 2022
Elon Musk's deal is looking wobbly, and the CEO just fired his top two lieutenants
Elon goes wobbly
Saturday, May 28, 2022
The Twitter deal is on hold. Is he renegotiating — or backing out?
Facebook admits its mistakes
Saturday, May 28, 2022
What the company's latest enforcement report tells us about the free-speech debate
Why the company behind Pokémon Go is getting crypto-curious
Saturday, May 28, 2022
Niantic is exploring web3. Will its user base play along?
You Might Also Like
AMA with Chiedo John, Director of Growth @ GitHub
Thursday, March 28, 2024
Live on Wednesday, April 3rd, starting at 9 AM PST͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
red hot startup intel
Thursday, March 28, 2024
FULL SWOT analysis on Ramp, Databricks, Cohere, Devoted Health, and Coalition inside Scouting Reports on 🔥 Startups Download Now Hi there, Psst. Want competitive intel on the top 5 industry leading
The Ultimate Amazon Guide: Strategies For Sellers In 2024
Thursday, March 28, 2024
Learn from Melisa Vong for FREE in the Start Your Ecommerce Business Summit ! Another day, another exciting opportunity to introduce you to one of our 20+ ecomm trailblazers in the Start Your Ecommerce
[SaaS Club] Overcoming Early Struggles to Bootstrap to $22M ARR
Thursday, March 28, 2024
Hey Reader Let's connect on LinkedIn! Follow me to stay in touch! Here's a quick round up of what's been going on at SaaS Club: 🎧 Podcast Hubstaff: Overcoming Early Struggles to Bootstrap
The ultimate 9-5 escape plan
Thursday, March 28, 2024
This is from THIS episode - Spotify - iTunes Reid Hoffman (founder of LinkedIn) once said “Entrepreneurship is like jumping off a cliff and building a parachute as you go down.” 😅🪂 I don't know
The Entrepreneur's Secret Weapon 💪
Thursday, March 28, 2024
The Entrepreneur's Secret Weapon 💪 u/Electrical_Ad_7754 Hey friends! Welcome to The Slice, a weekly curation of cool bootstrapped startups and actionable reads. We've got AI tools for
📂 Treat content like its your product
Thursday, March 28, 2024
Today's newsletter is proudly supported by Embarque 🎉 For two years in a row, SaaS founders and marketers reported content as the #1 driver of growth according to the State of SaaS
The ultimate 9-5 escape plan
Thursday, March 28, 2024
This is from THIS episode - Spotify - iTunes Reid Hoffman (founder of LinkedIn) once said “Entrepreneurship is like jumping off a cliff and building a parachute as you go down.” 😅🪂 I don't know
A Riff on Thought Leadership in the Age of Generative AI
Thursday, March 28, 2024
As an indie consultant, sharing my perspectives on my blog or social media, aka thought leadership, is an essential part of establishing credibility in my niche. But I've been quiet since November.
🗞 What's New: Building strong business partnerships
Thursday, March 28, 2024
Also: Use AI in your go-to-market strategy!