5月5日,F(xiàn)acebook公司的監(jiān)督委員會(huì)(Oversight Board)做出了迄今為止最重大的決定,認(rèn)定停用美國(guó)前總統(tǒng)唐納德·特朗普的賬號(hào)為合理行為,不過(guò)也表示不應(yīng)該“無(wú)限期暫?!?。
不管是這一決定、相應(yīng)的政策建議還是對(duì)決定的解釋,都能夠體現(xiàn)出該委員會(huì)未來(lái)治理可能的思路。畢竟Facebook在言論自由方面經(jīng)常犯錯(cuò)。通過(guò)此事也可以看出專家如何看待利用該服務(wù)創(chuàng)建更透明、也更公平的政策,從而管理未來(lái)的問(wèn)題。
2018年,F(xiàn)acebook的首席執(zhí)行官馬克·扎克伯格第一次宣布將創(chuàng)建監(jiān)督委員會(huì),相當(dāng)于處理內(nèi)容管控爭(zhēng)議的最高法院。當(dāng)時(shí)的想法是如果有用戶對(duì)Facebook員工的處置決定不滿意,能夠借此訴諸“獨(dú)立”專家組。
自那時(shí)起,F(xiàn)acebook的監(jiān)督委員會(huì)對(duì)9起案件作出了裁決,也提出了一些政策建議,主要關(guān)于改善內(nèi)容監(jiān)管方式。以下是關(guān)于監(jiān)督委員會(huì)的信息。
如何運(yùn)作?
委員會(huì)審查在Facebook和Instagram上已經(jīng)走完投訴程序的用戶提交案件,也有公司提交的案件。
委員會(huì)從提交材料中選出對(duì)其他案件以及公司政策影響最大的。其最終職責(zé)是判定帖子是否違反了Facebook的內(nèi)容政策,還可以建議Facebook根據(jù)調(diào)查結(jié)果調(diào)整或澄清政策。
隨后,委員會(huì)指派5名成員組成的小組負(fù)責(zé)審核。進(jìn)入審核程序的用戶能夠提交材料,解釋為什么被刪的帖子應(yīng)該恢復(fù)。
自案件選定之日起,委員會(huì)要在90天內(nèi)作出決定。在做出決定后,委員會(huì)公布結(jié)果、背后的理由及提出的政策建議。
Facebook必須遵守監(jiān)督委員會(huì)的決定嗎?
根據(jù)Facebook和監(jiān)督委員會(huì)的說(shuō)法,委員會(huì)的所有決定都“具有約束力”。在決定宣布后,F(xiàn)acebook有7天的時(shí)間來(lái)執(zhí)行裁決。唯一的例外是如果執(zhí)行可能違反法律的情況。
不過(guò),委員會(huì)的政策建議并非強(qiáng)制,F(xiàn)acebook有30天的時(shí)間公開(kāi)回應(yīng)建議。Facebook針對(duì)委員會(huì)裁決和建議采取行動(dòng)也必須對(duì)外公布。
委員會(huì)成員有哪些?
委員會(huì)成員包括20位專業(yè)知識(shí)廣泛的外部專家和公民領(lǐng)袖。托馬斯·休斯曾經(jīng)在英國(guó)媒體權(quán)利組織Article 19擔(dān)任執(zhí)行董事,負(fù)責(zé)委員會(huì)的管理。委員會(huì)的其他成員包括丹麥前總理赫勒·托寧·施密特;曾經(jīng)因?yàn)樵谝查T(mén)的民主和人權(quán)工作而榮獲諾貝爾和平獎(jiǎng)(Nobel Peace Prize)的塔瓦庫(kù)·卡曼;以及“人權(quán)觀察”(Human Rights Watch)組織在肯尼亞的聯(lián)盟和伙伴關(guān)系項(xiàng)目(Alliances and Partnerships Program)的創(chuàng)始主任馬伊納·吉埃等。
委員會(huì)的成員也有一些學(xué)者,例如斯坦福大學(xué)法學(xué)院憲法中心(Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University's law school)的主任邁克爾·麥康奈爾;臺(tái)灣政治大學(xué)的教授凱瑟琳·陳(音譯);還有巴西里約熱內(nèi)盧州立大學(xué)法學(xué)院(Rio de Janeiro State University’s law school)的教授羅納爾多·萊莫斯等。
委員會(huì)真的獨(dú)立嗎?
Facebook表示,委員會(huì)是獨(dú)立于公司的實(shí)體,并稱委員會(huì)的所有決定均不受Facebook監(jiān)督。雖然委員會(huì)由外部人士組成,但其結(jié)構(gòu)導(dǎo)致獨(dú)立性并不明顯。委員會(huì)由獨(dú)立于Facebook的實(shí)體監(jiān)督委員會(huì)有限責(zé)任公司聘用。有限責(zé)任公司的受托人負(fù)責(zé)監(jiān)督委員會(huì)的融資,并負(fù)責(zé)維持委員會(huì)的獨(dú)立性。
然而,該有限責(zé)任公司融資最終還是依賴Facebook。2019年,F(xiàn)acebook承諾在六年內(nèi)為其提供1.3億美元的資金。
委員會(huì)曾做出過(guò)哪些決定?
自去年12月受理第一批案件以來(lái),監(jiān)督委員會(huì)已經(jīng)對(duì)10起案件作出決定,從緬甸仇恨言論到巴西成人裸體,再到法國(guó)衛(wèi)生的誤導(dǎo)信息等。委員會(huì)推翻了6起Facebook刪除內(nèi)容的決定,維持了三項(xiàng)。有一起由于用戶帖子已經(jīng)刪除,委員會(huì)無(wú)法審核。在建議方面,委員會(huì)向Facebook提出了近30項(xiàng)政策建議,其中9項(xiàng)與特朗普案的決定有關(guān)。
Facebook表示,各項(xiàng)決定均已執(zhí)行,并且承諾實(shí)施至少12項(xiàng)由該委員會(huì)提出的建議。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
5月5日,F(xiàn)acebook公司的監(jiān)督委員會(huì)(Oversight Board)做出了迄今為止最重大的決定,認(rèn)定停用美國(guó)前總統(tǒng)唐納德·特朗普的賬號(hào)為合理行為,不過(guò)也表示不應(yīng)該“無(wú)限期暫?!?。
不管是這一決定、相應(yīng)的政策建議還是對(duì)決定的解釋,都能夠體現(xiàn)出該委員會(huì)未來(lái)治理可能的思路。畢竟Facebook在言論自由方面經(jīng)常犯錯(cuò)。通過(guò)此事也可以看出專家如何看待利用該服務(wù)創(chuàng)建更透明、也更公平的政策,從而管理未來(lái)的問(wèn)題。
2018年,F(xiàn)acebook的首席執(zhí)行官馬克·扎克伯格第一次宣布將創(chuàng)建監(jiān)督委員會(huì),相當(dāng)于處理內(nèi)容管控爭(zhēng)議的最高法院。當(dāng)時(shí)的想法是如果有用戶對(duì)Facebook員工的處置決定不滿意,能夠借此訴諸“獨(dú)立”專家組。
自那時(shí)起,F(xiàn)acebook的監(jiān)督委員會(huì)對(duì)9起案件作出了裁決,也提出了一些政策建議,主要關(guān)于改善內(nèi)容監(jiān)管方式。以下是關(guān)于監(jiān)督委員會(huì)的信息。
如何運(yùn)作?
委員會(huì)審查在Facebook和Instagram上已經(jīng)走完投訴程序的用戶提交案件,也有公司提交的案件。
委員會(huì)從提交材料中選出對(duì)其他案件以及公司政策影響最大的。其最終職責(zé)是判定帖子是否違反了Facebook的內(nèi)容政策,還可以建議Facebook根據(jù)調(diào)查結(jié)果調(diào)整或澄清政策。
隨后,委員會(huì)指派5名成員組成的小組負(fù)責(zé)審核。進(jìn)入審核程序的用戶能夠提交材料,解釋為什么被刪的帖子應(yīng)該恢復(fù)。
自案件選定之日起,委員會(huì)要在90天內(nèi)作出決定。在做出決定后,委員會(huì)公布結(jié)果、背后的理由及提出的政策建議。
Facebook必須遵守監(jiān)督委員會(huì)的決定嗎?
根據(jù)Facebook和監(jiān)督委員會(huì)的說(shuō)法,委員會(huì)的所有決定都“具有約束力”。在決定宣布后,F(xiàn)acebook有7天的時(shí)間來(lái)執(zhí)行裁決。唯一的例外是如果執(zhí)行可能違反法律的情況。
不過(guò),委員會(huì)的政策建議并非強(qiáng)制,F(xiàn)acebook有30天的時(shí)間公開(kāi)回應(yīng)建議。Facebook針對(duì)委員會(huì)裁決和建議采取行動(dòng)也必須對(duì)外公布。
委員會(huì)成員有哪些?
委員會(huì)成員包括20位專業(yè)知識(shí)廣泛的外部專家和公民領(lǐng)袖。托馬斯·休斯曾經(jīng)在英國(guó)媒體權(quán)利組織Article 19擔(dān)任執(zhí)行董事,負(fù)責(zé)委員會(huì)的管理。委員會(huì)的其他成員包括丹麥前總理赫勒·托寧·施密特;曾經(jīng)因?yàn)樵谝查T(mén)的民主和人權(quán)工作而榮獲諾貝爾和平獎(jiǎng)(Nobel Peace Prize)的塔瓦庫(kù)·卡曼;以及“人權(quán)觀察”(Human Rights Watch)組織在肯尼亞的聯(lián)盟和伙伴關(guān)系項(xiàng)目(Alliances and Partnerships Program)的創(chuàng)始主任馬伊納·吉埃等。
委員會(huì)的成員也有一些學(xué)者,例如斯坦福大學(xué)法學(xué)院憲法中心(Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University's law school)的主任邁克爾·麥康奈爾;臺(tái)灣政治大學(xué)的教授凱瑟琳·陳(音譯);還有巴西里約熱內(nèi)盧州立大學(xué)法學(xué)院(Rio de Janeiro State University’s law school)的教授羅納爾多·萊莫斯等。
委員會(huì)真的獨(dú)立嗎?
Facebook表示,委員會(huì)是獨(dú)立于公司的實(shí)體,并稱委員會(huì)的所有決定均不受Facebook監(jiān)督。雖然委員會(huì)由外部人士組成,但其結(jié)構(gòu)導(dǎo)致獨(dú)立性并不明顯。委員會(huì)由獨(dú)立于Facebook的實(shí)體監(jiān)督委員會(huì)有限責(zé)任公司聘用。有限責(zé)任公司的受托人負(fù)責(zé)監(jiān)督委員會(huì)的融資,并負(fù)責(zé)維持委員會(huì)的獨(dú)立性。
然而,該有限責(zé)任公司融資最終還是依賴Facebook。2019年,F(xiàn)acebook承諾在六年內(nèi)為其提供1.3億美元的資金。
委員會(huì)曾做出過(guò)哪些決定?
自去年12月受理第一批案件以來(lái),監(jiān)督委員會(huì)已經(jīng)對(duì)10起案件作出決定,從緬甸仇恨言論到巴西成人裸體,再到法國(guó)衛(wèi)生的誤導(dǎo)信息等。委員會(huì)推翻了6起Facebook刪除內(nèi)容的決定,維持了三項(xiàng)。有一起由于用戶帖子已經(jīng)刪除,委員會(huì)無(wú)法審核。在建議方面,委員會(huì)向Facebook提出了近30項(xiàng)政策建議,其中9項(xiàng)與特朗普案的決定有關(guān)。
Facebook表示,各項(xiàng)決定均已執(zhí)行,并且承諾實(shí)施至少12項(xiàng)由該委員會(huì)提出的建議。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
Facebook’s Oversight Board made its biggest decision yet on May 5 in ruling that the social network's suspension of former President Donald Trump was justified—though it said the “indefinite suspension” wasn’t.
The decision, corresponding policy recommendations, and the explanation of the ruling outline how the board will likely govern in the future—it often errs on the side of free speech. It also provides a road map for how experts believe the service can create more transparent and fair policies to manage future issues.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg first announced plans to create the board, a Supreme Court for content-moderation disputes, in 2018. The idea was to create a way for users to appeal decisions made by Facebook staffers to an “independent” group of experts.
Since then, Facebook’s Oversight Board has ruled on nine cases and offered a number of policy recommendations intended to improve how the service moderates content. Here’s everything to know about the board.
How does it work?
The board reviews cases submitted both by users who have exhausted the appeals process on Facebook and Instagram, as well as cases submitted by the company.
From the submissions it receives, the board selects cases that will have the largest implications on other cases or on Facebook’s policies. The board's ultimate duty is to decide whether posts violated Facebook’s content policies. It can also recommend that Facebook change or clarify its policies based on its findings.
The board then assigns a panel of five board members to review the case. Users whose cases are selected for review can submit materials making their argument for why their posts should be reinstated.
The board has 90 days from the day the case is selected to make a decision. Once a ruling has been made, the board publishes its decision, the rationale behind the decision, and any policy recommendations it develops.
Does Facebook have to abide by the board’s decisions?
All the board's decisions are “binding,” according to Facebook and the board, and Facebook has seven days to implement any rulings after a decision is announced. The only exception is if the implementation could violate the law.
But the board’s policy recommendations are optional, and Facebook has 30 days to publicly respond to the suggestions. Facebook also must publish what actions it took in response to the board's ruling and suggestions.
Who's on the board?
The board comprises 20 outside experts and civic leaders who have a broad range of expertise. Thomas Hughes, formerly executive director of Article 19, a British media-rights organization, leads the board's administration. Some of the board’s members include Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Denmark’s former Prime Minister; Nobel Peace Prize winner Tawakkol Karman, who was honored for her work in democracy and human rights in Yemen; and Maina Kiai, the founding director of Human Rights Watch’s Alliances and Partnerships Program in Kenya.
The board also includes academics such as Michael McConnell, the director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University's law school; Katherine Chen, a professor at National Chengchi University in Taiwan; and Ronaldo Lemos, a professor at Rio de Janeiro State University’s law school in Brazil.
Is the board truly independent?
Facebook considers the board to be an entity independent of the company and says all of its decisions are made without oversight from Facebook. While the board is made up of outsiders, its structure makes its independence less clear. The board is employed by the Oversight Board LLC, an entity created to operate separate from Facebook. The LLC has trustees who oversee the financing of the board and are responsible for maintaining the board's independence.
However, the LLC is ultimately dependent on Facebook for its financing. In 2019, Facebook committed to fund the organization with $130 million over six years.
What decisions has the board made?
Since taking its first cases in December, the Oversight Board has ruled on 10 cases, from hate speech in Myanmar to adult nudity in Brazil to health misinformation in France. The board has overturned six Facebook decisions to remove content while upholding three other decisions. The board was unable to review one of the cases, as the user deleted the post. In terms of recommendations, the board has also made nearly 30 policy recommendations to Facebook, nine of which came from the ruling of Trump’s case.
Facebook says it has implemented all the decisions. The company has also committed to implementing at least 12 of the board's policy recommendations.