New Regulatory Force of Cyberspace: The Case of Meta’s Oversight Board

Jan Mazur, Barbora Grambličková
{"title":"New Regulatory Force of Cyberspace: The Case of Meta’s Oversight Board","authors":"Jan Mazur, Barbora Grambličková","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2023-1-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It’s been a few years since Facebook (Meta) instituted its Oversight Board as a new quasi-judicial and regulatory body of one of the most important contemporary cyberspaces. It’s long established that social media platforms, such as Facebook, pose certain challenges to democracies as they, among other issues, allow for spread of fake news and hate speech, shift our perception of reality, or create echo chambers. In reaction to talks of regulating similar platforms, Meta’s self-regulatory attempt of instituting the Oversight Board appears to tackle the issue of content moderation by the platform itself. As the content moderation is one of the main sources of Meta’s problematic reputation (taking down posts, pages of various more or less known persons), the board is potentially significant. The paper analyses the board’s mandate, governance structure and procedures. We look at standard elements of independence of decision-making bodies (such as courts) to establish whether the Oversight Board is structured in a way conducive to independent decision making. We conclude that that structure of the Oversight Board fulfils some of the elements of the de jure judicial independence, however there is a room for improvement. Independence of the Oversight Board from Meta is a vital element of the institution, however we detect connections and dependencies on Meta (Meta needs to agree on changes of the Charter as well as the Bylaws, Meta was profoundly involved in the initial selection of the members, etc.). The whole structure of Oversight Board is heavily impacted by the private law institutes – trust, company, contracts – which might not be able to fully facilitate all the needs of an independent quasi-judicial body. The private structure, lacking necessary participatory mechanisms, does not permit the Oversight Board to gain necessary legitimacy. We also review the Oversight Board’s setup in light of the EU’s 2022 Digital Services Act (DSA), which represents one of the most comprehensive regulations of the social media platforms, including content moderation issues. We conclude that the Oversight Board would also not be compliant with requirements set forth in the DSA. After the adoption of the DSA, a question of compatibility of the Oversight Board with the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies opened.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2023-1-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It’s been a few years since Facebook (Meta) instituted its Oversight Board as a new quasi-judicial and regulatory body of one of the most important contemporary cyberspaces. It’s long established that social media platforms, such as Facebook, pose certain challenges to democracies as they, among other issues, allow for spread of fake news and hate speech, shift our perception of reality, or create echo chambers. In reaction to talks of regulating similar platforms, Meta’s self-regulatory attempt of instituting the Oversight Board appears to tackle the issue of content moderation by the platform itself. As the content moderation is one of the main sources of Meta’s problematic reputation (taking down posts, pages of various more or less known persons), the board is potentially significant. The paper analyses the board’s mandate, governance structure and procedures. We look at standard elements of independence of decision-making bodies (such as courts) to establish whether the Oversight Board is structured in a way conducive to independent decision making. We conclude that that structure of the Oversight Board fulfils some of the elements of the de jure judicial independence, however there is a room for improvement. Independence of the Oversight Board from Meta is a vital element of the institution, however we detect connections and dependencies on Meta (Meta needs to agree on changes of the Charter as well as the Bylaws, Meta was profoundly involved in the initial selection of the members, etc.). The whole structure of Oversight Board is heavily impacted by the private law institutes – trust, company, contracts – which might not be able to fully facilitate all the needs of an independent quasi-judicial body. The private structure, lacking necessary participatory mechanisms, does not permit the Oversight Board to gain necessary legitimacy. We also review the Oversight Board’s setup in light of the EU’s 2022 Digital Services Act (DSA), which represents one of the most comprehensive regulations of the social media platforms, including content moderation issues. We conclude that the Oversight Board would also not be compliant with requirements set forth in the DSA. After the adoption of the DSA, a question of compatibility of the Oversight Board with the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies opened.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
网络空间的新监管力量:Meta监督委员会的案例
几年前,脸书(Meta)成立了监督委员会,作为当代最重要的网络空间之一的一个新的准司法和监管机构。长期以来,人们一直认为,脸书等社交媒体平台对民主国家构成了某些挑战,因为它们允许假新闻和仇恨言论的传播,改变我们对现实的看法,或者制造回音室。作为对监管类似平台的回应,Meta成立监督委员会的自律尝试似乎是为了解决平台本身的内容审核问题。由于内容审核是Meta声誉问题的主要来源之一(删除各种或多或少知名人士的帖子和页面),董事会具有潜在的重要意义。本文分析了董事会的任务、治理结构和程序。我们研究决策机构(如法院)独立性的标准要素,以确定监督委员会的结构是否有利于独立决策。我们的结论是,监督委员会的结构符合法律上司法独立的一些要素,但仍有改进的余地。监督委员会与Meta的独立性是该机构的一个重要组成部分,但我们发现了与Meta之间的联系和依赖性(Meta需要就章程和章程的变更达成一致,Meta深入参与了成员的初步选择等),合同——这可能无法完全满足一个独立的准司法机构的所有需求。私人结构缺乏必要的参与机制,使监督委员会无法获得必要的合法性。我们还根据欧盟2022年《数字服务法》(DSA)审查了监督委员会的设置,该法案是社交媒体平台最全面的法规之一,包括内容审核问题。我们的结论是,监督委员会也不符合DSA中提出的要求。DSA通过后,监督委员会与庭外争端解决机构的兼容性问题开始出现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Addressing Evolving Digital Piracy Through Contributory Liability for Copyright Infringement: The Mobdro Case Study (Un)lock and (Un)loaded: Regulating 3D-Printed Firearms in the Open-source Era after the 2013 Hysteria Patent-Eligible Invention Requirement Under the European Patent Convention and its Implications on Creations Involving Artificial Intelligence Cybersecurity: Notorious, but Often Misused and Confused Terms How the Two Child Abuse Cases Helped to Shape the Test of Originality of Photographic Works
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1