The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
From Prof. Michael McConnell: Meta Oversight Board Steps Up To Protect Conservative Political Speech
I'm delighted to pass along this item from my Hoover Institution colleague Michael McConnell, who is also a professor at Stanford Law School and the co-chair of the Facebook Oversight Board:
Increasingly, the most significant gatekeepers for political speech are not elected governments or courts, but the social media companies that control Facebook, Instagram, Threads, YouTube, X, and the like. That is why I signed on to co-chair Meta's independent Oversight Board, which handles appeals from users and referrals from the company in high-profile cases from all over the world. Necessarily, the Board cannot take a large number of cases; it decided just over 50 last year and is on track to decide a few more this year. The hope (and I think to some extent the reality) is that these high-profile cases, most of which have reversed Meta's original decision, will have an impact on the content moderation system as a whole.
Conservatives in the United States have long complained that the social media companies discriminate against right-of-center speech. It is hard to know how systemic this problem might be, because there are no good data—but there certainly are disturbing examples. Even Mark Zuckerburg has admitted that, in hindsight, the censorship of, for example, the Hunter Biden Laptop story, was wrong, and that the company has been too ready to comply with Administration demands to take down posts based on claims about misinformation and disinformation. In all likelihood, this ideological discrimination, to the extent it exists, is a product less of deliberate company policy than the tendency of on-the-ground content moderators (who are typically drawn from the Bay Area technocracy, which is not evenly divided between the parties) to make close calls in a way that skews left.
People wonder why, then, there have been relatively few interventions by the Oversight Board to protect right-of-center users from suppression of their speech on the platform. Based on my experience, there are at least two reasons. First, when users point out obvious errors in taking down legitimate posts, Meta's internal system often corrects the decision within a few days or a week. A few days or a week is long enough to do the harm; speech on political issues is usually stale after that time has passed. But if errors are corrected in that time frame, the case will never come to the Oversight Board.
Second, it is my impression that many conservatives have persuaded themselves that institutions like the Oversight Board are part of the left-progressive blob, and that it would be a pointless waste of time to appeal. A number of times when I have read complaints in the media about biased content moderation and have inquired why the users did not take their complaint to the Board, I hear some version of this response.
That is why the Oversight Board decision today is so important. In August, a Facebook user posted a satirical picture based on the movie "Dumb and Dumber," substituting the faces of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Facebook removed the post under its Bullying and Harassment Community Standard, apparently because the two figures were portrayed (as in the movie) touching each other's nipples through their clothing. The case was quickly brought to the Oversight Board, which used summary procedures to get a decision out before the election. The Board concluded, unsurprisingly, that this political message was protected speech, and Facebook has complied. The full decision can be found here.
I hope this will signal that people of all political stripes, including conservatives, can get help when overenforcement of Meta's content standards results in suppression of legitimate speech. And I hope that, like other Oversight Board decisions, this will reenforce to Meta content moderators that they need to be more careful when taking down political speech. The Oversight Board process may appear clunky, but it is worth the effort.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"this political message was protected speech"
This explanation falls short. What does "protected" mean here? Social media companies intentionally prohibit some speech that is protected under American free speech rules. The Oversight Board does not apply the First Amendment as a general rule.
Wouldn't it, in context, mean "protected under Facebook's own rules, from being removed by Facebook moderators" (because, as the linked-to full decision says, "[Meta's] Community Standards were not violated in this case")?
The only instance of "protected" in the decision is
Professor McConnell wants this case to look like standing up for the downtrodden right when it seems to be about a mistaken application of the "sexualized" standard. I would use "protected" for cases like Hustler v. Falwell. Offensive speech about a public figure is more tolerated than similar speech about a private figure.
The case is non-precedential because Facebook reversed its decision before the appeal was decided. I remember somebody complaining about that practice by local prosecutors. An ordinance was on shaky legal ground. Anybody who spent money on legal fees would see the case dropped to avoid an adverse precedent. The rest would be convicted in municipal court.
Whatever protected means, pro-Palestine speech seems not to be protected at Facebook/Meta.
Meta’s Israel Policy Chief Tried to Suppress Pro-Palestinian Instagram Posts
If the ICC or the ICJ finds that the State of Israel or its government officials perpetrated genocide, Meta could easily be in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2339A - Providing material support to terrorists because this statute considers a perpetrator of genocide to be a terrorist and because the commission of genocide is determined by law (18 U.S. Code § 1091 - Genocide) and not by the executive branch.
We’re not so far gone that we’ve turned over the interpretation of our own criminal statutes to the United Nations.
As for the International Criminal Court – far from being a tribunal respected by U. S. law, my understanding is that U. S. law allows sanctions against the ICC if it messes with U. S. soldiers.
So their rules, their interpretation, their biases...how exactly is that different from "FU we'll do what we want"?
The FB Oversight Board is a mere Holloween Mask to protect the leftist Karens who work as Censors for Facebook. "Nipples touching" -- how trivial.
They* are paid well to look the other way on First Amendment issues, they routinely do as paid, and EVERYONE knows that little secret. No wonder so few bother to appeal.
*There may be exceptions.
Seems to be putting your time where your mouth is.
But: "It is hard to know how systemic this problem might be, because there are no good data—but there certainly are disturbing examples. "
Do you want confirmation bias? Because this is how you get confirmation bias.
It's absolutely confirmation bias. That's what this whole post is about.
"There certainly are disturbing examples" and hand-waves at a couple of right-wing, half-baked complaints.
When trying to explain why the Board's work hasn't been more widely noted, McConnell shrugs: I'm sure the discrimination against conservatives is happening, it just doesn't reach my attention, for reasons I've just pulled out of my ass.
Then the one example Eugene feels the need to share with us is one where the Board took extraordinary action in order to ensure an anti-Harris message got out ahead of the election.
What a clown.
As opposed to massive efforts to get an opponent into jail before the election, or off the ballot before the election.
Trump committed crimes, Krayt. Several of his co-conspirators have entered guilty pleas that help to confirm this. He stands as a convicted felon who has been permitted to move about freely while he appeals his conviction. His other criminal trials have been delayed endlessly or dismissed contrary to law. If there was anything like a "massive effort" to get him in jail, he'd be there already.
In fact there is a massive effort to keep him out of jail. That's the whole point of his campaign. The only question is whether he'll stay in office after he pardons himself and makes MAGA look like the sea of fools and dupes that we know they are.
Thats our next President you're talking about, if you haven't figured it out already
Our election has turned into a referendum on whether it is acceptable for a political party in power in prosecute its political enemies.
Bingo!
Weird then that one of the candidates is running on prosecuting his political enemies once he's in power.
Wow, you can correct 50 cases a year. That will definitely correct the problem!
"Increasingly, the most significant gatekeepers for political speech are not elected governments or courts, but the social media companies that control Facebook, Instagram, Threads, YouTube, X, and the like."
[citation needed]
Social media companies think too highly of themselves.
A question about categories. Do you really think MAGA stuff ought to be counted among decisions to prevent discrimination against conservatives?
I think MAGA stuff ranges among various flavors of anti-institutionalism, anarchism, nihilism, and outright deception, with only a smaller fraction having anything to do with conservatism. Does Meta intend to take a stand in favor of special review to advance the programs of anti-institutionalists, anarchists, nihilists, and fraudsters? Is there evidence those have been unjustly discriminated against?
If so, should I applaud such corporate self-sacrifice, to set aside sound business policy to achieve . . . what? Or is it the aim of McConnell to sanewash MAGA malignancies as mere conservatism?
Ron Desantis
Protector of 1st Amendment Political speech
- Tried to silence Disney
- Tried to silence news stations
- Tried to force counsel for FL health department to send cease and desist letters
- Forced silence of university teachers
- Sent state election police to people’s homes to confirm petition signatures
Don't forget: He also tried to stop kindergarten teachers from giving pornographic books to small kids.
Oh well...hey...that makes up for everything.
I mean...you hayseeds have been apoplectic about Twitter and Facebook. But your favorite Mussolini of the South has been employing state power to shut down political speech for years. Right in front of your hypocritical eyes. I must say, you fuckers have been amusing me for quite awhile
Why don't you have the statistics. Given the level of technical expertise available should be no problem. Also a week delay is unacceptable given the news cycle.