- Facebook's supervisory board is an independent body which will be responsible for deciding moderation debates.
- Internet users and organizations will be able to seize it, and Facebook will be forced to respect its decisions.
- With 2.5 billion network users, the task looks daunting, not to mention the doubts about Facebook's intentions.
It is an unprecedented initiative on this scale. Facebook presented the first 20 members of its supervisory board on Wednesday. After years of controversy over moderation, this independent body - by its statute but also its funding - will be responsible for playing the supreme arbiters. Internet users or organizations contesting a Facebook decision will be able to appeal to the council, which will deal with the most complex cases relating to freedom of expression, incitement to hatred and human rights. Director of the NGO Internet without borders, the Cameroonian lawyer and "pure product of French republican education" Julie Owono joined the organization after having been guaranteed to be able to "keep (her) independence and her freedom of tone" . Despite Facebook's liabilities, she insisted: "It is innovative that a private company agrees to cede part of the sovereignty over the content issue. "
How was your recruitment? Has Facebook accepted critical voices?
I applied and had an interview with the four co-chairs (chosen by Facebook), with a discussion focused on values and freedom of expression. Personally, I was critical of the company as part of my research with a report on the moderation of hate content in sub-Saharan Africa.
How will the council decide to take up a file, with 40 people (in the long term) facing 2.5 billion users?
Both users and Facebook can bring cases and requests for appeal to the attention of the board. The logistical details are being worked out. But it is obvious that out of the thousands, or perhaps more, of requests that will be received, 40 members will not be able to process everything. The idea is to take up emblematic cases, not only in the legal problems they pose, but also in the impact they may have on users in similar situations. These decisions could create a kind of jurisprudence. We are not going to pretend to have answers to everything. As colleagues have said, we are not the Facebook police, we cannot see everything in real time.
Will Mark Zuckerberg be able to go against a decision of the council?
The statutes provide that our decisions will be binding on the social network. For example, if a post has been deleted and we ask them to deliver it, Facebook will be forced to do so, unless national legislative issues prevent it from doing so.
What have been Facebook's biggest failures in fifteen years? What are its most important challenges?
As an activist of a freedom of expression NGO, I do not speak there on behalf of the board. When we talk about moderation, it is knowing when platforms should apply their censorship - that's what it is all about, it must be said - and what is the limit. There are international texts which have been ratified by states and which apply to companies, at least from a moral point of view - because there is no police who will verify that human rights are respected. In case of danger of a publication, it is necessary to refer to what the international texts say. They recall that the fundamental principle must always be freedom of expression. It is only in certain very restrictively defined cases by the judicial authorities that limitations can be applied. This is particularly the case when publications facilitate genocide, as we have seen in Burma. These are decisions that were not made in time by Facebook. They recognized him. It will remain a scarlet letter on the social network of not having been able to see this before this violence was committed.
Why couldn't they see it? Have advances in artificial intelligence been exaggerated?
At the time, very few Facebook staff spoke Burmese. And beyond, you have to be able to understand and detect the subtleties of the vocabulary. A generic word can be used in a very violent context. If you have a machine that doesn't understand the intricacies and moderators who speak bad Burmese, you lose a lot of understanding of the context. When we talk about freedom of expression, the context is always essential.
The question of "Fake News" is more relevant than ever with the Covid and the American presidential election in November. Has Facebook learned from the past?
Disinformation issues continue to be a problem for the platform, but there has been progress. Facebook has just published a report explaining that they had still deleted hundreds of accounts linked to foreign powers with malicious intentions. It remains a global concern for Facebook and others.
For moderation, Facebook and others hire thousands of contract workers who work in difficult conditions, with a heavy psychological impact. Will the board think about areas for improvement?
We have not yet started this work, but what is provided for in the statutes is that the board can make recommendations on the company's content policy. These recommendations differ from the decisions that will be required.
Beyond censorship, the question of "reach", which Facebook posts are favored in Newsfeed, is essential. There is currently very little transparency. Is this intended to change?
The demands for transparency are almost unanimous when we talk about algorithms, notably on the moderation of content and the classification of information, and not only for Facebook. Again, I speak as the director of an NGO that has positioned itself on these issues, much more transparency is needed.
In the United States, many conservatives consider themselves victims of censorship and say they are underrepresented in this council. Others fear a “single thought police”. Do you understand them?
When you see the composition of the board, there are very opposite views, and some are conservative. We will have the capacity to put our personal opinions aside. What is important is the common interest and the defense of freedom of expression for all.
Facebook has a heavy liability, and you are committing your credibility by joining this initiative. Are you convinced that this is not just an announcement effect?
The issue of content governance remains and will remain a challenge. The board is an experiment. There has never been an equivalent in the history of the Web. I find it innovative that a private company which, for the moment, was not legally obliged to do so, agrees to cede part of its sovereignty over the content issue. We have a three-year mandate, with annual audit reports in which we will report. Before saying yes, I thought a lot about these questions about the independence and the importance of this board. Independence, from my point of view, is total. It is not Facebook that will administer it but an entity that has been created, which is itself independent and has a budget made irrevocably available by Facebook in a trust. The company withdrew from all operational aspects on Wednesday. I would not have accepted this post to be a decoration on the wall or having to give up my freedom of tone.
Despite its theoretical independence, is the council likely to be influenced by Facebook or Mark Zuckerberg?
What Facebook or Mark Zuckerberg think, it no longer matters so much for the board. Facebook - and even more so with the Covid - has become a public space. Half of humanity is connected on Facebook or on one of the company's platforms (Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp). This is basically the challenge: how to make this public space of a private company allow us to protect the principles for which we have fought for generations. Let us not forget that other Nations are fighting to conquer their rights and make it a reality.
High-Tech
Facebook presents the Council of Elders who will be the ultimate arbiter of moderation
High-Tech
Twitter: A new feature to dissuade you from posting insults
- Fake news
- Freedom of expression
- High-Tech