Facebook plans launch of its own “Supreme Court” for handling takedown appeals

Have you ever had a Facebook post come down, and wondered why?

Well that’s because Facebook says it enforces community standards prohibiting things like violence and criminal behavior, pornography, and other objectionable content and behavior. But if you haven’t violated those terms, now you can appeal them— the tech giant released new governing documents for an independent oversight board that can overturn decisions by the company itself.

With the new Oversight Board, comprised of people independent of the company, users will be able to appeal those decisions. CEO Mark Zuckerberg previously proposed the board as a way to check its decision-making as lawmakers and regulators keep a close watch on the company.

So does that mean a real check to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s control is finally coming? Yes and no:

There remains serious concerns about how the Oversight Board is selected and the wiggle room the charter provides Facebook. In some ways this can actually be an advantage, the committee could serve to shield Zuckerberg and Facebook from scrutiny and regulation. In the form of an 11 to 40-member Oversight Board that will review appeals to its policy decisions, like content takedowns, and make recommendations for changes. Oversight Board could ensure the CEO doesn’t always have the final say in how Facebook works.

Most glaringly, Facebook itself will choose the initial members and then work with them to select the rest of the board, and thereby could avoid adding overly incendiary figures.

How the Oversight Board works

When a user disagrees with how Facebook enforces its policies, and with the result of an appeal to Facebook’s internal moderation team, they can request an appeal to the Oversight Board. Facebook is looking for members with a broad range of knowledge, competencies and expertise who lack conflicts of interest. They’re meant to be “experienced at deliberating thoughtfully and collegially,“ “skilled at making and explaining decisions based on a set of policies,” “well-versed on matters relating to digital content and governance” and “independent and impartial.

This is so necessary, he's made too many detrimental mistakes.