Meta’s oversight committee clashed internally over a “free speech” overhaul of Mark Zuckerberg’s content moderation.
Zuckerberg’s decision to terminate the US meta fact-checking program and globally weaken hate speech policies has sparked tensions among board members, but according to multiple reports, due to an unexpected shakeup. Some are furious at the 1.8TN social media platform itself. People who are familiar with this issue.
Meta’s oversight committee members — an independent organisation tasked with rulings on sensitive moderation issues — were not consulted in any way about U-turns, four said.
The board’s co-chairs issued a statement saying they “welcome” news that Meta is reviewing the fact-checking program, which they say does not reflect the views of many board members. I did. About the hate speech policy shift.
The board is currently trying to find ways to review changes, provide accountability and ensure that it is compliant with human rights obligations.
One option is to write your own white paper or report, said someone familiar with the issue. Other members hope that the board will implement what is called “policy recommendation opinions.” This allows you to request information and provide guidance and non-binding recommendations for the meta regarding its policy making. However, Meta needs to incite this process and no further decisions have been made yet.
One said that “voicing and passionate statements are in high spirits from board members,” while another said that the strong between the board and US conservatives, represented by other global members. He said there is a gap.
The overhaul was part of Zuckerberg’s escalating push towards Curry’s favor with President Donald Trump, sparking concerns from not only some advertising companies but also civil rights groups.
Last week, the global coalition for Tech Justice, a move by more than 250 civil rights groups and experts in 55 countries, called on the Meta oversight committee to step down in a massive amount in an open letter.
“Your strict previous choice: lend credibility to a company that knowingly dismantles safeguards for democracy and human rights, or take a position to defend the very principles you have been appointed to support. either,” read the letter.
Launched in 2020, the board includes journalists and global experts on human rights and free expression, as a unique mechanism for accountability in the social media industry, and critics Zuckerberg is trying to hold them accountable. It is announced as. He is increasingly scrutinized on his platform.
The board, which relies on funding through trusts, has secured an annual budget of at least $35 million through the end of 2027, according to a September announcement.
Among the main concerns, some board members have made professional fact checkers in favor of the “community note” approach pioneered by Elon Musk’s X to flag false information themselves. I’m worried about throwing it away. Active conflict or ethnic tension.
The fact-checking changes are expected to unfold in the next few months in the US. It is unclear whether or not this will expand globally.
Others were shocked by changes to their hate speech policy that allowed immigrants, women, LGBTQ and trans communities to be called specific slurs.
Paolo Carrozza, co-chair of the Notre Dame Board and Law Professor, has a “strong desire” to advise the Financial Times on how the board designs and deploys fact-checking changes. He said he was there.
Recommended
He added that given the “constructive” relationships so far, there is “the expectation that Meta can work with us.”
Carrozza said he doesn’t know any board members who are planning to resign. He said the board is considering four ongoing hate speech cases.
“Of course, there are differences between our members — and even more intense differences,” he added. “What the board is about is inferred, careful, and careful judgment.”
Meta declined to comment.
Some board members are already speaking publicly in their personal abilities. “False information, misinformation, including dehumanization, and hate speech can be extremely killing,” Rusbridger wrote in January. . . (and) leads to broad civic disability, as we saw in the US and the UK.
In an interview, Stanford University professor Michael McConnell, co-chair of the board, said in a statement that while the fact checker historically revised content that was more historically conservative than left-wing content, Meta said, “so controversial and partisan.” “In an era,” he said he hoped that the system would be reformed.
