Connect with us

Social Media

Facebook’s Oversight Board Members Seek to Clarify the Organization’s Role and Impact

Often characterized in the media as the Supreme Court of Facebook, Oversight Board members explained how the board actually functions.

Published

on

Photo of Julie Owono from May 2021

ASPEN, Colorado, August 20, 2021—Two members of Facebook’s controversial and oft misunderstood Oversight Board on Monday attempted to clarify the role of the organization, months after it upheld Facebook’s decision to ban President Donald Trump from the platform.

The Oversight Board is an organization funded by an independent trust created and funded by Facebook. The body is responsible for making binding decisions on content moderation cases for Facebook and Instagram.

While the body was once only able to adjudicate cases referred to it by Facebook, it can now hear cases through an appeal process brought about by Facebook users themselves. Though the decision to uphold or dissent from Facebook’s moderation are binding upon Facebook, policy recommendations based off the board’s findings are not.

These were some of the points that Michael McConnell and Julie Owono attempted to address while speaking on a panel at the Technology Policy Institute’s 2021 Aspen Forum here on Monday.

McConnell pointed out that of all the recommendations that the board has made to Facebook, the social media giant has only accepted around half of them. He was quick to point out that, in his opinion, this was not necessarily a bad thing.

“We are still learning,” he said, “We need to hold [Facebook’s] feet to the fire but we also need to be practical.” McConnell stated that sometimes the board’s recommendations are too “utopian,” and that Facebook needs more realistic solutions.

Owono said she was supportive of initiatives and recommendations that would improve meaningful transparency. When pressed on the situation regarding the NYU researchers stonewalled by Facebook, she emphasized that collaborative efforts between all stakeholders are critical to ensuring that Facebook stays on the right path.

McConnell said that he agreed with Owono’s assessment. While he said he was not privy to the details surrounding the NYU research situation, he was confident that the work done by the Oversight Board had brought a level of publicity that itself would help to keep Facebook in line.

“When we make recommendations people notice,” he said. This kind of attention is often sufficient incentive for Facebook to take their suggestions seriously, he said.

Because Facebook is required to respond to the Oversight Board’s comments within a specific window of time, Owono said, “Not receiving an answer is [an answer].”

Social Media

Americans Should Look to Filtration Software to Block Harmful Content from View, Event Hears

One professor said it is the only way to solve the harmful content problem without encroaching on free speech rights.

Published

on

Photo of Adam Neufeld of Anti-Defamation League, Steve Delbianco of NetChoice, Barak Richman of Duke University, Shannon McGregor of University of North Carolina (left to right)

WASHINGTON, July 21, 2022 – Researchers at an Internet Governance Forum event Thursday recommended the use of third-party software that filters out harmful content on the internet, in an effort to combat what they say are social media algorithms that feed them content they don’t want to see.

Users of social media sites often don’t know what algorithms are filtering the information they consume, said Steve DelBianco, CEO of NetChoice, a trade association that represents the technology industry. Most algorithms function to maximize user engagement by manipulating their emotions, which is particularly worrisome, he said.

But third-party software, such as Sightengine and Amazon’s Rekognition – which moderate what users see by bypassing images and videos that the user selects as objectionable – could act in place of other solutions to tackle disinformation and hate speech, said Barak Richman, professor of law and business at Duke University.

Richman argued that this “middleware technology” is the only way to solve this universal problem without encroaching on free speech rights. He suggested Americans in these technologies – that would be supported by popular platforms including Facebook, Google, and TikTok – to create the buffer between harmful algorithms and the user.

Such technologies already exist in limited applications that offer less personalization and accuracy in filtering, said Richman. But the market demand needs to increase to support innovation and expansion in this area.

Americans across party lines believe that there is a problem with disinformation and hate speech, but disagree on the solution, added fellow panelist Shannon McGregor, senior researcher at the Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life at the University of North Carolina.

The conversation comes as debate continues regarding Section 230, a provision in the Communications Decency Act that protects technology platforms from being liable for content their users post. Some say Section 230 only protects “neutral platforms,” while others claim it allows powerful companies to ignore user harm. Experts in the space disagree on the responsibility of tech companies to moderate content on their platforms.

Continue Reading

Free Speech

Experts Reflect on Supreme Court Decision to Block Texas Social Media Bill

Observers on a Broadband Breakfast panel offered differing perspectives on the high court’s decision.

Published

on

Parler CPO Amy Peikoff

WASHINGTON, June 2, 2022 – Experts hosted by Broadband Breakfast Wednesday were split on what to make of  the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to reverse a lower court order lifting a ban on a Texas social media law that would have made it illegal for certain large platforms to crack down on speech they deem reprehensible.

The decision keeps the law from taking affect until a full determination is made by a lower court.

Parler CPO Amy Peikoff

During a Broadband Live Online event on Wednesday, Ari Cohn, free speech counsel for tech lobbyist TechFreedom, argued that the bill “undermines the First Amendment to protect the values of free speech.

“We have seen time and again over the course of history that when you give the government power to start encroaching on editorial decisions [it will] never go away, it will only grow stronger,” he cautioned. “It will inevitably be abused by whoever is in power.”

Nora Benavidez, senior counsel and director of digital justice and civil rights for advocate Free Press, agreed with Cohn. “This is a state effort to control what private entities do,” she said Wednesday. “That is unconstitutional.

“When government attempts to invade into private action that is deeply problematic,” Benavidez continued. “We can see hundreds and hundreds of years of examples of where various countries have inserted themselves into private actions – that leads to authoritarianism, that leads to censorship.”

Different perspectives

Principal at McCollough Law Firm Scott McCollough said Wednesday  that he believed the law should have been allowed to stand.

“I agree the government should not be picking and choosing who gets to speak and who does not,” he said. “The intent behind the Texas statute was to prevent anyone from being censored – regardless of viewpoint, no matter what [the viewpoint] is.”

McCollough argued that this case was about which free speech values supersede the other – “those of the platforms, or those of the people who feel that they are being shut out from what is today the public square.

“In the end it will be a court that acts, and the court is also the state,” McCollough added. “So, in that respect, the state would still be weighing in on who wins and who loses – who gets to speak and who does not.”

Chief policy officer of social media platform Parler Amy Peikoff said Wednesday that her primary concern was “viewpoint discrimination in favor of the ruling elite.”

Peikoff was particularly concerned about coordination between state agencies and social media platforms to “squelch certain viewpoints.”

Peikoff clarified that she did not believe that the Texas law was the best vehicle to address these concerns, however, stating instead that lawsuits – preferably private ones – be used to remove the “censorious cancer,” rather than entangling a government entity in the matter.

“This cancer grows out of a partnership between government and social media to squelch discussion about certain viewpoints and perspectives.”

Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. Watch the event on Broadband Breakfast, or REGISTER HERE to join the conversation.

Wednesday, June 1, 2022, 12 Noon ET – BREAKING NEWS EVENT! – The Supreme Court, Social Media and the Culture Wars

The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a Texas law that would ban large social media companies from removing posts based on the views they express. Join us for this breaking news event of Broadband Breakfast Live Online in which we discuss the Supreme Court, social media and the culture wars.

Panelists:

  • Scott McCollough, Attorney, McCollough Law Firm
  • Amy Peikoff, Chief Policy Officer, Parler
  • Ari Cohn, Free Speech Counsel, TechFreedom
  • Nora Benavidez, Senior Counsel and Director of Digital Justice and Civil Rights at Free Press
  • Drew Clark (presenter and host), Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast

Panelist resources:

W. Scott McCollough has practiced communications and Internet law for 38 years, with a specialization in regulatory issues confronting the industry.  Clients include competitive communications companies, Internet service and application providers, public interest organizations and consumers.

Amy Peikoff is the Chief Policy Officer of Parler. After completing her Ph.D., she taught at universities (University of Texas, Austin, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, United States Air Force Academy) and law schools (Chapman, Southwestern), publishing frequently cited academic articles on privacy law, as well as op-eds in leading newspapers across the country on a range of issues. Just prior to joining Parler, she founded and was President of the Center for the Legalization of Privacy, which submitted an amicus brief in United States v. Facebook in 2019.

Ari Cohn is Free Speech Counsel at TechFreedom. A nationally recognized expert in First Amendment law, he was previously the Director of the Individual Rights Defense Program at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and has worked in private practice at Mayer Brown LLP and as a solo practitioner, and was an attorney with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Ari graduated cum laude from Cornell Law School, and earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Nora Benavidez manages Free Press’s efforts around platform and media accountability to defend against digital threats to democracy. She previously served as the director of PEN America’s U.S. Free Expression Programs, where she guided the organization’s national advocacy agenda on First Amendment and free-expression issues, including press freedom, disinformation defense and protest rights. Nora launched and led PEN America’s media-literacy and disinformation-defense program. She also led the organization’s groundbreaking First Amendment lawsuit, PEN America v. Donald Trump, to hold the former president accountable for his retaliation against and censorship of journalists he disliked.

Drew Clark is the Editor and Publisher of BroadbandBreakfast.com and a nationally-respected telecommunications attorney. Drew brings experts and practitioners together to advance the benefits provided by broadband. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, he served as head of a State Broadband Initiative, the Partnership for a Connected Illinois. He is also the President of the Rural Telecommunications Congress.

Photo of the Supreme Court from September 2020 by Aiva.

WATCH HERE, or on YouTubeTwitter and Facebook.

As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.

SUBSCRIBE to the Broadband Breakfast YouTube channel. That way, you will be notified when events go live. Watch on YouTubeTwitter and Facebook

See a complete list of upcoming and past Broadband Breakfast Live Online events.

Continue Reading

Section 230

Narrow Majority of Supreme Court Blocks Texas Law Regulating Social Media Platforms

The decision resulted in an unusual court split. Justice Kagan sided with Justice Alito but refused to sign his dissent.

Published

on

Caricature of Samuel Alito by Donkey Hotey used with permission

WASHINGTON, May 31, 2022 – On a narrow 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States on Tuesday blocked a Texas law that Republicans had argued would address the “censorship” of conservative voices on social media platforms.

Texas H.B. 20 was written by Texas Republicans to combat perceived bias against conservative viewpoints voiced on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms with at least 50 million active monthly users.

Watch Broadband Breakfast Live Online on Wednesday, June 1, 2022

Broadband Breakfast on June 1, 2022 — The Supreme Court, Social Media and the Culture Wars

The bill was drafted at least in part as a reaction to President Donald Trump’s ban from social media. Immediately following the January 6 riots at the United States Capitol, Trump was simultaneously banned on several platforms and online retailers, including Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and myriad other websites.

See also Explainer: With Florida Social Media Law, Section 230 Now Positioned In Legal Spotlight, Broadband Breakfast, May 25, 2021

Close decision on First Amendment principles

A brief six-page dissent on the matter was released on Tuesday. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the law should have been allowed to stand. Justice Elena Kagan also agreed that the law should be allowed to stand, though she did not join Alito’s penned dissent and did not elaborate further.

The decision was on an emergency action to vacate a one-sentence decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court had reversed a prior stay by a federal district court. In other words, the, the law passed by the Texas legislature and signed by Gov. Greg Abbott is precluded from going into effect.

Tech lobbying group NetChoice – in addition to many entities in Silicon Valley – argued that the law would prevent social media platforms from moderating and addressing hateful and potentially inflammatory content.

In a statement, Computer & Communications Industry Association President Matt Schruers said, “We are encouraged that this attack on First Amendment rights has been halted until a court can fully evaluate the repercussions of Texas’s ill-conceived statute.”

“This ruling means that private American companies will have an opportunity to be heard in court before they are forced to disseminate vile, abusive or extremist content under this Texas law. We appreciate the Supreme Court ensuring First Amendment protections, including the right not to be compelled to speak, will be upheld during the legal challenge to Texas’s social media law.”

In a statement, Public Knowledge Legal Director John Bergmayer said, “It is good that the Supreme Court blocked HB 20, the Texas online speech regulation law. But it should have been unanimous. It is alarming that so many policymakers, and even Supreme Court justices, are willing to throw out basic principles of free speech to try to control the power of Big Tech for their own purposes, instead of trying to limit that power through antitrust and other competition policies. Reining in the power of tech giants does not require abandoning the First Amendment.”

In his dissent, Alito pointed out that the plaintiffs argued “HB 20 interferes with their exercise of ‘editorial discretion,’ and they maintain that this interference violates their right ‘not to disseminate speech generated by others.’”

“Under some circumstances, we have recognized the right of organizations to refuse to host the speech of others,” he said, referencing Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc.

“But we have rejected such claims in other circumstances,” he continued, pointing to PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins.

Will Section 230 be revamped on a full hearing by the Supreme Court?

“It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies, but Texas argues that its law is permissible under our case law,” Alito said.

Alito argued that there is a distinction between compelling a platform to host a message and refraining from discriminating against a user’s speech “on the basis of viewpoint.” He said that H.B. 20 adopted the latter approach.

Alito went on, arguing that the bill only applied to “platforms that hold themselves out as ‘open to the public,’” and “neutral forums for the speech of others,” and thus, the targeting platforms are not spreading messages they endorse.

Alito added that because the bill only targets platforms with more than 50 million users, it only targets entities with “some measure of common carrier-like market power and that this power gives them an ‘opportunity to shut out [disfavored] speakers.’”

Justices John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Sonya Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett all voted affirmatively – siding with NetChoice LLC’s emergency application – to block H.B. 20 from being enforced.

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

Trending