Here's an unintended consequence from Facebook's independent Oversight Board: Does it make Facebook's judgment look good by comparison?
1/
https://www.oversightboard.com/news/165523235084273-announcing-the-oversight-board-s-first-case-decisions/

The key issue the Board's decisions raise for me is the set of laws it is interpreting and enforcing. The decisions, to me, expose the weakness in that set of statutes, giving the Board no higher principles to call upon. 2/

In one case, the Board allows what seems to be an insult to Muslim men as a group. In another, it disallows an insult to Azerbaijanis. Part of the problem is whether things rise to "hate speech" under FB's statutes. If FB had a standard of respect instead, both should go. 3/

The Board stands for freedom of expression: great. That freedom should include Facebook's right & responsibility to maintain a safe space for expression under a standard below "hate speech" and "human rights." I call this the garden-party standard: Are assholes allowed? 4/

The problem, as I have said repeatedly, is that Facebook gives its moderators and the Board only statues to enforce rather than a larger mission, a north star, a raison d'être. 5/ https://medium.com/whither-news/governance-18be4b9a468c

I really dislike the Board's decision restoring content on hydroxychloroquine. Under the cloak of free expression they keep up misinformation, arguing that harm is not imminent without prescriptions. Facebook was right to take this down. The Board is wrong.... 6/

Once again, I say the problem is FB's rules, which the Board interprets like strict constructionists on the Supreme Court. "Imminent physical harm" should not be the ruling standard for politicized health misinformation. Now it is. 7/

In the fifth decision, Facebook changed its mind before the ruling but the Board used the opportunity to slap Facebook's wrist anyway about its (in my view) immature standard on female breasts. Fine. 8/

There is good guidance in the Board's decisions about more transparency and communication with users. The problem, again, remains the set of statutes the Board is enforcing. Can FB change those statues or has the Board now engraved them in granite? 9/

I now fear the Board's decision re Trump, upcoming. If the only standard is freedom of expression then the outcomes are limited. If the standard were: "This is our garden party and we don't want fascists and insurrectionists harassing our guests" it would likely be different. 10/

The question to me now is whether Facebook can write its Constitution and Bill of Rights not to go around the Board but instead to give it a better body of law to interpret and enforce. The present statutes are written for moderators, not public debate. We shall see. 11/

I'm glad to see Facebook say that in spite of the Board's hydroxychloroquine decision, the company will continue to make science its standard in judging misinformation. How can it be anything else? /12 https://about.fb.com/news/2021/01/responding-to-the-oversight-boards-first-decisions/

I'm as close to a First Amendment absolutist as you'll find. I value freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas. But as a journalist, I also abhor the idea that misinformation that is not immediately harmful should be carried anyway. That is the worst of false balance.13/