toon

Viewpoints: Facebook’s ‘court’ declines to give it an easy out

The social media giant’s oversight board refused responsibilities that belong to Facebook alone.

By Jack M. Balkin and Kate Klonick / Special To The Washington Post

Last week, the Facebook Oversight Board, the global deliberative body set up by Facebook to adjudicate content decisions, finally issued a decision on the indefinite suspension of former president Donald Trump from the platform.

Facebook has spent two years, countless hours and $130 million setting up the board, in part to outsource responsibility for making controversial and unpopular decisions. So when the biggest hot potato of recent years — the insurrection of Jan. 6 and Trump’s role in instigating it — landed in Facebook’s lap, company executives quickly tossed it to the new board.

And the board, in an almost 10,000-word decision making technical arguments about the rule of law and procedural fairness, threw it right back to Facebook.

The ‘newsworthy’ exemption: The background of the Trump case is crucial to understanding what the board did. For years, Facebook created and maintained formal and informal carve-outs to its community standards for powerful individuals on the ground that such individuals were “newsworthy.” Had Trump been an ordinary individual, he would have been a serial violator of Facebook’s rules and kicked off the site long ago. But Facebook kept him on.

Facebook’s newsworthiness exemption was — as many inside the company said at the time — a terrible idea. The definition of newsworthiness is subjective and circular, and using it as a guidepost effectively made Facebook the arbiter of what is or isn’t news. More important for this case, giving people special treatment because their speech was newsworthy had predictably awful effects: When you give exceptions to the most powerful people in the world, they will abuse their power. That’s exactly what Trump did. Create a terrible rule, and you get terrible consequences.

On Jan. 6, this accommodation to power finally blew up in Facebook’s face. After initially taking down two of Trump’s posts, and then his account, Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg announced the following day that Trump was suspended “indefinitely.” Around the world, leaders from Russian dissident Alexei Navalny to German Prime Minister Angela Merkel decried the decision, alarmed at the power of the platform to unilaterally remove a democratically elected leader, demagogue though he might be.

In response to public pressure, Facebook availed itself of the new Oversight Board: an independent organization of its own creation staffed with experts in international human rights and freedom of expression to hear user appeals of Facebook’s content moderation decisions. On the evening of Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, Facebook sent the question of “Trump’s indefinite suspension” to the board for a binding decision and policy advice on how to deal with similar issues surrounding world leaders in the future.

It was a critical moment for the board, which was not even a year old. It was also a critical moment for Facebook, whose leaders probably hoped that the board would relieve it of responsibility for making a tough decision. Whether the board restored Trump to the site or kept him out, Facebook could point to the decision and say, “They made us do it.”

The court so rules: The board, which models itself after an appellate court, was not willing to be used in this way. Its decision pointed out that Facebook had not employed clear rules and that it had made up new ones on the fly to dump Trump. That was not consistent with rule-of-law values or with procedural fairness. Moreover, the board found that Facebook had merely suspended Trump “indefinitely.” This implied that there would be a final determination somewhere down the line. No such determination ever came.

Instead, Facebook had simply offloaded the case to the board. But the board made clear that while Facebook can keep Trump off for now, if it wants to expel the former president permanently, it will be Facebook, and not the Oversight Board, that must create actual rules for doing so and apply them to Trump’s case.

The board also pushed back in two other ways. Each presages future conflicts between the board and the company that created it.

In its arguments before the board, Facebook had denied that it “has never applied the newsworthiness allowance to content posted by the Trump Facebook page or Instagram account.” If Facebook was saying that Trump has never gotten special treatment, this was either false or seriously misleading. And if Facebook expects the board to act like an independent appeals court, making arguments like that is a mistake: The one thing you never do before a court is try to hoodwink it.

This put the board in a bit of a bind. Without calling Facebook out directly, the board simply noted that Facebook’s “lack of transparency” creates the perception that “the company may be unduly influenced by political or commercial considerations.” Hence, the board demanded that Facebook address “widespread confusion about how decisions relating to influential users are made.”

Trump’s amplifier: Facebook had also told the board that Trump’s “repeated use of Facebook and other platforms to undermine confidence in the integrity of the election … represented an extraordinary abuse of the platform.” In response, the board asked Facebook how much its own algorithms and technological design had “amplified Mr. Trump’s posts” and contributed to the Jan. 6 riots. This came uncomfortably close to asking Facebook how its business model might have incentivized conspiracy theories and violence.

Facebook “declined to answer these questions,” the decision noted. This may be one of the most important sentences in the opinion. If Facebook wants the board to be respected as an independent court, stonewalling its questions won’t help. Stymied by its creators, the board wrote that Facebook’s refusal to disclose how it uses algorithms to shape public discourse made it difficult to give the company the benefit of the doubt on whether it acted reasonably in responding to Trump. The board clearly recognized that publicizing Facebook’s refusals to cooperate or provide information is the best and possibly only way to put pressure on the company to behave more responsibly in the future.

Facebook created the Oversight Board to outsource responsibility, buy a little legitimacy, and offload difficult decisions about how to adjudicate speech claims to someone else. The board’s most high-profile ruling to date shows that the board won’t always be willing to play along. Instead, sometimes the world’s largest social media company will have to take responsibility for itself.

Jack M. Balkin is Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School. His latest book is “The Cycles of Constitutional Time.”

Kate Klonick is an assistant professor at law at St. John’s University Law School and an affiliate fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

Making adjustments to keep Social Security solvent represents only one of the issues confronting Congress. It could also correct outdated aspects of a program that serves nearly 90 percent of Americans over 65. (Stephen Savage/The New York Times) -- NO SALES; FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY WITH NYT STORY SLUGGED SCI SOCIAL SECURITY BY PAULA SPAN FOR NOV. 26, 2018. ALL OTHER USE PROHIBITED.
Editorial: Congress must act on Social Security’s solvency

That some workers are weighing early retirement and reduced benefits should bother members of Congress.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, June 24

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Kristof: Bombing of Iranian nuclear sites leaves 3 key unknowns

We don’t know how Iran will respond, if the attacks were successful or if they can lead to a new regime.

Harrop: With success against Iranian targets, time to step back

Trump’s call to strike was right, as is his declaration to shift the conversation to negotiations.

Stephens: Trump made right call to block Iran’s nuclear plans

While there are unknowns, the bombing leaves Iran with few options other than negotiation.

Comment: Immigration crackdown has economic fallout for all

Undocumented workers are a major source of labor in many fields. Replacing them won’t be easy; or cheap.

Comment: Trump isn’t first president to treat press badly

It doesn’t excuse excluding the AP from the Oval Office, but presidential cold shoulders are nothing new.

In this Sept. 2017, photo made with a drone, a young resident killer whale chases a chinook salmon in the Salish Sea near San Juan Island, Wash. The photo, made under a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) permit, which gives researchers permission to approach the animals, was made in collaboration with NOAA Fisheries/Southwest Fisheries Science Center, SR3 Sealife Response, Rehabilitation, and Research and the Vancouver Aquarium's Coastal Ocean Research Institute. Endangered Puget Sound orcas that feed on chinook salmon face more competition from seals, sea lions and other killer whales than from commercial and recreational fishermen, a new study finds. (John Durban/NOAA Fisheries/Southwest Fisheries Science Center via AP)
Editorial: A loss for Northwest tribes, salmon and energy

The White House’s scuttling of the Columbia Basin pact returns uncertainty to salmon survival.

Glacier Peak, elevation 10,541 feet, in the Glacier Peak Wilderness of Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest in Snohomish County, Washington. (Caleb Hutton / The Herald) 2019
Editorial: Sell-off of public lands a ruinous budget solution

The proposal in the Senate won’t aid affordable housing and would limit recreational opportunities.

In a gathering similar to many others across the nation on Presidents Day, hundreds lined Broadway with their signs and chants to protest the Trump administration Monday evening in Everett. (Aaron Kennedy / Daily Herald)
Editorial: Let’s remember the ‘peaceably’ part of First Amendment

Most of us understand the responsibilities of free speech; here’s how we remind President Trump.

THis is an editorial cartoon by Michael de Adder . Michael de Adder was born in Moncton, New Brunswick. He studied art at Mount Allison University where he received a Bachelor of Fine Arts in drawing and painting. He began his career working for The Coast, a Halifax-based alternative weekly, drawing a popular comic strip called Walterworld which lampooned the then-current mayor of Halifax, Walter Fitzgerald. This led to freelance jobs at The Chronicle-Herald and The Hill Times in Ottawa, Ontario.

 

After freelancing for a few years, de Adder landed his first full time cartooning job at the Halifax Daily News. After the Daily News folded in 2008, he became the full-time freelance cartoonist at New Brunswick Publishing. He was let go for political views expressed through his work including a cartoon depicting U.S. President Donald Trump’s border policies. He now freelances for the Halifax Chronicle Herald, the Toronto Star, Ottawa Hill Times and Counterpoint in the USA. He has over a million readers per day and is considered the most read cartoonist in Canada.

 

Michael de Adder has won numerous awards for his work, including seven Atlantic Journalism Awards plus a Gold Innovation Award for news animation in 2008. He won the Association of Editorial Cartoonists' 2002 Golden Spike Award for best editorial cartoon spiked by an editor and the Association of Canadian Cartoonists 2014 Townsend Award. The National Cartoonists Society for the Reuben Award has shortlisted him in the Editorial Cartooning category. He is a past president of the Association of Canadian Editorial Cartoonists and spent 10 years on the board of the Cartoonists Rights Network.
Editorial cartoons for Monday, June 23

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Comment: MAGA coalition may not survive U.S. attack on Iran

Split over Trump’s campaign promise of no ‘forever wars,’ his supporters are attacking each other.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.