Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio
Speaker 1: and how the tech Area. A couple of years ago, Facebook,
Speaker 1: which of course later became Meta, announced the intention to
Speaker 1: create an Oversight Board for the purposes of her viewing
Speaker 1: Facebook's content moderation practices. The company was still is under
Speaker 1: a ton of pressure to respond to various issues, ranging
Speaker 1: from disinformation campaigns to the proliferation of hate speech. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: Facebook's responses were frequently criticized as not being sufficient, as
Speaker 1: were the company's policies, which had noticeable gaps and transparency issues. Thus,
Speaker 1: the creation of the Oversight Board and the Board, while
Speaker 1: deriving funds from a trust that was created by Facebook,
Speaker 1: is independent of Meta itself. I had the chance to
Speaker 1: speak with dex Hunter Torrik, who heads up the communications
Speaker 1: department at the Oversight Board. We talked about the Board's mission,
Speaker 1: We talked about its history and how it tackles the
Speaker 1: challenge of picking and deciding cases that have the potential
Speaker 1: to impact millions or potentially even billions of users. And
Speaker 1: what follows is my conversation with him. Enjoy Dex, Welcome
Speaker 1: to text stuff. It is a pleasure to have you
Speaker 1: on the show. Great. I'm really excited to talk to
Speaker 1: you because the Facebook Oversight Board is something that I've
Speaker 1: talked about a few times since it first began to
Speaker 1: to be a thing a few years ago. But I
Speaker 1: feel like I include myself here. I feel like a
Speaker 1: lot of people don't have a full unders standing of
Speaker 1: what the board actually does, why it's They're like, what
Speaker 1: necessitated it's um, it's creation and the process by which
Speaker 1: it goes through while it's determining the outcome of of
Speaker 1: various cases. So I'm so glad to have you here
Speaker 1: to kind of pull back the veil of mystery because
Speaker 1: I think it's very easy easy for those of us
Speaker 1: in the media too, even unconsciously misrepresent what's happening. Sure.
Speaker 1: I mean, when you hear about the board, right, and
Speaker 1: you think there's a group of experts who are focused
Speaker 1: on things like content moderation standards and Facebook's community standards,
Speaker 1: you know, the rules that govern the platforms, it is
Speaker 1: something that I think a lot of people sort of
Speaker 1: skip past, right. It's almost like when you're installing an
Speaker 1: app on your iPhone. You get those disclaimers and nobody
Speaker 1: reads them. You just click yes. You know. Um, it's
Speaker 1: something that's incredibly complex, and it sounds quite dry, and
Speaker 1: it is is. And because of that, we naturally gravitate
Speaker 1: to the more exciting questions about, you know, how should
Speaker 1: social media be regulated? Um, what are the kind of
Speaker 1: structural issues within the industry? Um. You know that we
Speaker 1: can have lots of points of view on the truth
Speaker 1: is those rules that Facebook and now matter of course, um,
Speaker 1: you know have constructed four platforms like Facebook and Instagram.
Speaker 1: They have an enormous impact on free speech and human
Speaker 1: rights around the world. They govern almost every aspect of
Speaker 1: online discourse today on any given topic. So we really
Speaker 1: see the value of the Board as an institution that
Speaker 1: is focused on scrutinizing those rules and understanding the impact
Speaker 1: on people's lives and then working at how to improve
Speaker 1: them so that we better defend free expression and human rights.
Speaker 1: That is a incredibly valuable mission. And I would say,
Speaker 1: I think the other thing to think about with the
Speaker 1: Board is really, um, we are only a small part
Speaker 1: of the solution to the you know, much larger challenges
Speaker 1: that you know are occurring all across the tech industry
Speaker 1: and across social media, and in particular with meta UM.
Speaker 1: And I think people often today, where we have such
Speaker 1: short attention spans and the world is in such crisis,
Speaker 1: we often think, UM, I want a quick solution to
Speaker 1: all of these problems. And the board is not a
Speaker 1: quick solution to those problems, and it will only ever
Speaker 1: be a small part of the overall solutions that we need.
Speaker 1: But even though it's only part of the solution, I
Speaker 1: think it can still be incredibly valuable. So that's that's
Speaker 1: how I go about describing the impact of the boards
Speaker 1: and working on a sort of purpose in the world. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and when you look at as you were mentioned, in
Speaker 1: the world in crisis, I mean there are crises all
Speaker 1: over the world where we often see social networks being
Speaker 1: pulled into them. Whether you're talking about Myanmar or Russia
Speaker 1: and Ukraine, or you talk about India, I mean, they're
Speaker 1: they're famous cases or even here in the United States. UM,
Speaker 1: famous cases all around the world where you have this
Speaker 1: delicate balancing act of how do you best serve uh,
Speaker 1: the the customers of Facebook who are actually using the product,
Speaker 1: or depending on your point of view, the product of
Speaker 1: Facebook or using the product, uh. And then and then
Speaker 1: how do you how do you also make sure that
Speaker 1: it's it's not violating any laws to uphold a certain
Speaker 1: policy like that. That to me is probably the most
Speaker 1: complicated part of the picture, because I think a lot
Speaker 1: of people can have a knee jerk reaction when they
Speaker 1: see maybe a piece of content being removed or a
Speaker 1: piece of content staying up when you may seem like
Speaker 1: it's controversial, but without having the full understanding of the context,
Speaker 1: uh it can you know you might not you might
Speaker 1: not have the the appreciation of why that move was made.
Speaker 1: And then, of course the Oversight Board can step in
Speaker 1: when you have cases where people have appealed UH an
Speaker 1: action that Facebook has taken in order to make a
Speaker 1: judgment over whether or not that was the right call
Speaker 1: more or less getting it right absolutely, And I think
Speaker 1: you hit the nail on the head right, um, which
Speaker 1: is these are incredibly challenging issues where there isn't always
Speaker 1: an easy right answer um. And without the context, you
Speaker 1: certainly can't make an informed decision about these issues. So
Speaker 1: I'll give you a very specific example. One of the
Speaker 1: early cases of the board took on when we started
Speaker 1: operating in twenty twenty one was around a speech relating
Speaker 1: to COVID misinformation. So there was a piece of content
Speaker 1: that had been taken down by then Facebook from their
Speaker 1: platform under their COVID misinformation rules, and when the board
Speaker 1: looked at it, we actually found it was perfectly legitimate speech.
Speaker 1: It wasn't something that was spreading something that we thought,
Speaker 1: you know, had a potential of leading to to imminent harm.
Speaker 1: It was something that was a legitimate debate about public
Speaker 1: health policy and how authority should be responding to COVID
Speaker 1: in France. And these are extraordinarily thorny questions, right if
Speaker 1: you have something that seems like it might be in
Speaker 1: the COVID misinformation space, given how sensitive that topic is,
Speaker 1: given the enormity of the public health emergency, you might
Speaker 1: as a platform just you know, err on the side
Speaker 1: of caution and take something down. But if you do that,
Speaker 1: and if you do that a lot, and you have
Speaker 1: that sort of cumulative impact on freedom expression, we are
Speaker 1: muscling the ability of communities to have informed debates about
Speaker 1: these issues, and we need to be able to have those.
Speaker 1: It is perfectly legitimate to have debates about how as
Speaker 1: a society we should respond to things such as COVID.
Speaker 1: Another example, just from the last few months, we had
Speaker 1: a case that involved someone in Sweden who had posted
Speaker 1: about sexual abuse of minors. And this is obviously, you know,
Speaker 1: ex extraordinarily sensitive, and this piece of content was you know,
Speaker 1: taken down UM and it was found to be you know,
Speaker 1: very graphic and something that was deeply unpleasant at the
Speaker 1: same time as being you know, deeply deeply unpleasant and
Speaker 1: very very hard to to read. It was something that
Speaker 1: raised legitimate questions again about sentencing and how people you know,
Speaker 1: who are involved in these kinds of crimes should be
Speaker 1: treated as a society. So again something that is important
Speaker 1: for people people to be able to have discussions about
Speaker 1: in spite of how difficult it is, UM, you know,
Speaker 1: to read some of these things. So the board is
Speaker 1: constantly looking to navigate these issues, and we judge each
Speaker 1: piece of content based on a set of several things.
Speaker 1: How does content interact with Meta's own rules and standards,
Speaker 1: so their own stated rules that applied for the platforms
Speaker 1: um is content compatible with that. We're looking at the
Speaker 1: values that the company says that they abide by. And
Speaker 1: of course then you sometimes have tension between the values
Speaker 1: that the company says there by by the actual rules
Speaker 1: that they've come up with, and we look to clarify
Speaker 1: that tension. The third piece, which is where I think
Speaker 1: the most interesting. You know, an important angle for the
Speaker 1: board is is how content and the decisions made about
Speaker 1: that content relate to international human rights standards. So of
Speaker 1: course there have been decades of work by all sorts
Speaker 1: of experts and leaders, you know, across the ecosystem which
Speaker 1: have worked to codify human rights standards and norms. You know,
Speaker 1: how we think it is acceptable to treat people and
Speaker 1: communities in a way that protects their freedom of expression
Speaker 1: and their human rights. And the Board is constantly going
Speaker 1: back to that body of knowledge to try and make
Speaker 1: decisions in a way that is principled and ultimately puts
Speaker 1: those people first. It boggles my mind at how complicated
Speaker 1: this is. See, I love tex stuff. I love doing
Speaker 1: the technology side because I've said this many times. The
Speaker 1: beauty of technology is either it works or it doesn't right,
Speaker 1: either it's wired properly or it's not. Whereas when we
Speaker 1: start getting into the application of technology in the real world, gosh,
Speaker 1: people just make it so much more complicated. Yes, really,
Speaker 1: I used to be a SpaceX and you know, my
Speaker 1: favorite thing about that going to there from where I
Speaker 1: previously was, you know, I was working at Facebook before
Speaker 1: that was ultimately the rocket launchers or it doesn't. There's
Speaker 1: no spinning it. You know, either you know, puts a
Speaker 1: satellite up there or it doesn't. It everyone knows when
Speaker 1: it doesn't. But this isn't like that, and that's what
Speaker 1: makes it so I think challenging and sometimes unsatisfying for
Speaker 1: a lot of people. You know, there are a relatively
Speaker 1: fewer opportunities for the board to say, ah, we have
Speaker 1: absolutely nailed it and everyone else is wrong about this.
Speaker 1: You know, there is the rocket, you know, launching. You know,
Speaker 1: sometimes there's a lot of debate about whether that's a
Speaker 1: rocket or not. Dex and I will have more to
Speaker 1: say about the Facebook Oversight Board after these messages. When
Speaker 1: you start talking about things like digital rights, I mean,
Speaker 1: there have been plenty of cases, even well before the
Speaker 1: Facebook Oversight Board was formed, where you had some really
Speaker 1: thorny aces where the question was who is ultimately um
Speaker 1: in the wrong or more in the wrong on some
Speaker 1: of these cases where it became a question of freedom
Speaker 1: of speech, and digital rights versus someone's right to privacy.
Speaker 1: These are very complicated matters and I I certainly wouldn't
Speaker 1: want to be the person to have to adjudicate which
Speaker 1: is the most important. Um. Let's let's let's backtrack a
Speaker 1: little bit though. Let's talk a little bit about the
Speaker 1: actual formation of the board itself. Can you talk about
Speaker 1: sort of how that came to be? Yeah? Absolutely, So.
Speaker 1: The board was created by Facebook back when it was
Speaker 1: still called Facebook, and the first um, sort of you know,
Speaker 1: vision for the board was announced by Mark Zuckerberg back
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen, and he wrote a long note which
Speaker 1: he posts on his Facebook outlining the vision for an
Speaker 1: independent body that could make decisions about some of the
Speaker 1: most consequential content issues that the company was face ing.
Speaker 1: And the sort of elevator pitch for why you would
Speaker 1: want to create the sort of body was very simple. Um,
Speaker 1: the world is of enormous and growing complexity, and there
Speaker 1: are fewer and fewer decisions that the company can just
Speaker 1: go and make successfully on its own. So having an
Speaker 1: independent oversight body filled with leaders and experts from a
Speaker 1: lot of different backgrounds was a way of expanding the
Speaker 1: diversity of perspectives that the company had available to it,
Speaker 1: and at the same time building a structure that gave
Speaker 1: people trust in the rules and the way those rules
Speaker 1: were enforced on these platforms that have become such a
Speaker 1: big part of our lives. And the design of the
Speaker 1: board incredibly complex, something that took quite a long time
Speaker 1: because I think the company, to its credit, wanted to
Speaker 1: get this right. So they went out and they consulted
Speaker 1: an enormous number of different stakeholders around the world, you know,
Speaker 1: more than two thousand people, um, you know, in many,
Speaker 1: many countries, And they spent about a year tracking around
Speaker 1: basically having these consultations with civil society, with experts, with lawyers, um,
Speaker 1: you know, with policy makers, until they came up with
Speaker 1: a structure which was you know, I think, really really
Speaker 1: strong and and is the one that we now use.
Speaker 1: So they built this institution with three components. There's the board,
Speaker 1: which is whateveryone immediately thinks of when they think of
Speaker 1: the oversight board. Right now, we've got twenty members, you know,
Speaker 1: who come from a lot of different backgrounds and perspectives.
Speaker 1: Ultimately the board might grow up to a maximum of
Speaker 1: forty people. We then have a trust and the trust
Speaker 1: has a set of trustees who operate again independently from META.
Speaker 1: Their job is to oversee the sort of fiduciary you know,
Speaker 1: duties that are needed to run an organization like this,
Speaker 1: and the real value is to protect the independence of
Speaker 1: the board. So META does fund the board. They put
Speaker 1: money into that trust. There's an irrevocable trust that's overseen
Speaker 1: by those trustees, and the trustees are there basically to
Speaker 1: ensure that all the you know, sort of messy you
Speaker 1: know conversations about resource seeing and so on take place
Speaker 1: at arm's length from where the decisions are happening. And trustees,
Speaker 1: of course don't have any role in the decision making
Speaker 1: and the sort of substantive you know, policy work of
Speaker 1: the board. You then have the third piece of the board,
Speaker 1: which is where I sit, which is the full time
Speaker 1: team of staff. So behind those board members you have
Speaker 1: a full time team of you know, other experts and
Speaker 1: people who helped keep the institution running, UM who helps
Speaker 1: steer those cases through their life cycle at the board
Speaker 1: and so UM. The board was announced in May twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: that's when the first twenty members were announced, and then
Speaker 1: we started accepting cases towards the end of that year,
Speaker 1: and then the first decisions came out in January one.
Speaker 1: So we're just a little bit over a year into
Speaker 1: the life of the board now. Um and you know,
Speaker 1: we've delivered over twenty cases now over a hundred detailed
Speaker 1: policy recommendations to the company. Some of these cases have
Speaker 1: been very, very significant. Others have been very significant but
Speaker 1: have received less attention. But we're starting to see the
Speaker 1: impact of the board's on the company, starting to see
Speaker 1: tangible outcomes in terms of how those rules are structured
Speaker 1: at Meta and how they're being enforced. Um And we've
Speaker 1: got you know, years left to run for the board,
Speaker 1: So I think it's it's an extraordinary exciting experiment, um
Speaker 1: you know, which Meta committed to, but is one that
Speaker 1: is becoming you know, more real by the day and
Speaker 1: and less like a experiment and more like an enduring
Speaker 1: institution that I think will be around for some time.
Speaker 1: I like that word experiment because I feel like that's
Speaker 1: why a lot of people viewed the board when it
Speaker 1: was first announced. It was really a new kind of concept,
Speaker 1: this idea of an outside entity that was independent of
Speaker 1: the platform saying making judgments about whether or not the
Speaker 1: platform was actually enforcing its own rules, whether those rules
Speaker 1: were legal in some cases, I'm sure, um and and
Speaker 1: and again, like the context of each case, I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people were kind of kind of confused
Speaker 1: by it, like it was surprising, it was not something
Speaker 1: they would think of. But then you also have to
Speaker 1: consider the fact that META has such a global reach, right,
Speaker 1: It's it's very easy, I think, especially for people in
Speaker 1: my country, in the United States, it's very easy for
Speaker 1: us to be so US centric that we forget the
Speaker 1: reach and how deep the penetration is in other parts
Speaker 1: of the world. Uh, And so we don't even start
Speaker 1: to consider the fact that we need to have a
Speaker 1: different set of rules in order to guide those organizations
Speaker 1: because we're used to everything being US. So that I
Speaker 1: think was part of the confusion. Yeah, I think I
Speaker 1: think you raise a really important point, Jonathan. I mean,
Speaker 1: so much of the discourse you're absolutely right, is driven
Speaker 1: by folks in the United States, and if not in
Speaker 1: the United States, in Western Europe. And we are the
Speaker 1: parts of the world which are super connected, you know.
Speaker 1: Our experience of connectivity, um, you know is absolutely phenomenal
Speaker 1: compared to the experience that a lot of people in
Speaker 1: other communities have and um, I think people often take
Speaker 1: connectivity for granted in those markets. Um. You know, we've
Speaker 1: just seen, you know, in the last few days and
Speaker 1: weeks what it means to be connected. Um, you know
Speaker 1: in places like Ukraine or in Russia, where people are
Speaker 1: you know, struggling to have their voices heard. And the
Speaker 1: extraordinary impact that social media can have in allowing people
Speaker 1: to mobilize and communities to organize and to fight for
Speaker 1: things like freedom, you know, a struggle that again a
Speaker 1: lot of people in the West of sort of you know,
Speaker 1: until fairly recently, it's sort of taken for granted. So
Speaker 1: I do think the fact that the Board operates and
Speaker 1: thinks very globally is a huge asset. Over half of
Speaker 1: our cases so far have been from the Global South,
Speaker 1: and the Board has been very deliberate about going after
Speaker 1: issues in places like India and myan mar um, you know,
Speaker 1: in Latin America, because we think those areas have been
Speaker 1: neglected for too long. When it comes to looking at
Speaker 1: content moderation and the discourse about protecting speech online and well,
Speaker 1: I think another thing that really nails home how important
Speaker 1: this is for me is that if we start removing
Speaker 1: things like like ethics and or morality or whatever, and
Speaker 1: we're looking at things from purely a business standpoint. From
Speaker 1: Meta's point of view, um, clearly the company gets the
Speaker 1: majority of its revenue from places like the United States,
Speaker 1: in Western Europe, less so in other places where you
Speaker 1: have this limited connectivity, and as a result from that
Speaker 1: business perspective, again not taking humanity into account, you start
Speaker 1: to understand, oh, this is where they're going to dedicate
Speaker 1: their resources because this is where the revenue comes from.
Speaker 1: That's where an uh an independent board really becomes important
Speaker 1: because they don't have that connection to this is where
Speaker 1: the revenue comes from, So this is where we need
Speaker 1: to focus. It's they're divorced from that so that they
Speaker 1: can take that approach where they say, no, let's really
Speaker 1: look at these areas where traditionally the company itself may
Speaker 1: not have dedicated a lot of its focus and makes
Speaker 1: certain that the decisions that are being made are really
Speaker 1: the right ones and are not neglecting a population simply
Speaker 1: because they're not driving ad revenue the way other parts
Speaker 1: of the world are. Yeah. Absolutely, I mean the board
Speaker 1: doesn't look at things like metas public relations, you know, strategy,
Speaker 1: or the impact of decisions on advertisers or you know,
Speaker 1: metas ad revenues. That is absolutely not a rubric that
Speaker 1: we're interested in. UM. We're we're focused on, you know,
Speaker 1: advancing free speech and human rights and very much UM
Speaker 1: ensuring that the company treats its users better. And I
Speaker 1: think the way that the board was constructed bringing together
Speaker 1: leaders you know, who have the kinds of backgrounds and
Speaker 1: perspectives and expertise who allow us to go and focus
Speaker 1: on that UM, you know, who aren't being sidetracked into
Speaker 1: you know, considering you know, those other issues. I think
Speaker 1: that's a huge strength for the board. It's an extraordinarily
Speaker 1: principal set of leaders UM and they really you know,
Speaker 1: want to focus on doing good for the users UM
Speaker 1: of Metas products, but also wider society. It's not just
Speaker 1: about the users of Facebook and Instagram, because we know
Speaker 1: that those platforms and you know, the billions of people
Speaker 1: who use them also have a deep, deep impact on
Speaker 1: broader society and and the world we all live in. Well,
Speaker 1: then let's let's talk a little bit about the process,
Speaker 1: and can you talk a bit about how the board
Speaker 1: decides which cases to consider. I assume that they receive
Speaker 1: far more than they actually go through. Yeah, So I
Speaker 1: mean since we started accepting cases towards the end of
Speaker 1: twenty we've now received over a million user appeals users
Speaker 1: of Facebook and Instagram. UM. That's the primary route by
Speaker 1: which appeals come to the board. Meta can also refer
Speaker 1: questions to the board, but we've naturally wanted to focus
Speaker 1: as much as possible on hearing the appeals that are
Speaker 1: coming up from the users of those platforms. So we've
Speaker 1: taken a lot more from from users in case us UM.
Speaker 1: The way we sift through that avalanche of UM you know,
Speaker 1: incoming appeals UM, some of it is based on how
Speaker 1: we UM you know, categorize UM those appeals that are
Speaker 1: coming in. So we have systems and you know processes
Speaker 1: that are designed to sift us down to a smaller number,
Speaker 1: which is still quite large, which then people are you
Speaker 1: know going through you know, in in a lot of detail.
Speaker 1: So the big criteria we use as those cases are
Speaker 1: coming in are all these cases that we think have
Speaker 1: the potential to impact a lot of users of UM
Speaker 1: of metas platforms. We obviously want to take on UM,
Speaker 1: you know, cases with the limited resources of the board
Speaker 1: which have the biggest impact for people. So we're looking
Speaker 1: at things that have the potential to impact thousands or
Speaker 1: millions of people around the world. We're looking for things
Speaker 1: that raise important questions about METAS policies. So you might
Speaker 1: have a single case. It might you know, be something
Speaker 1: about COVID misinformation in France, or it might be something
Speaker 1: about you know, UM, you know, hate speech you know
Speaker 1: in UH in India that might raise big questions more
Speaker 1: generally about the policies and the rules and how they're
Speaker 1: enforced on METAS platforms. The other one is, um, is
Speaker 1: this something that's going to have a big impact on
Speaker 1: freedom of expression and does it raise big questions about
Speaker 1: public discourse online? So UM with each of those cases,
Speaker 1: really we're looking for these emblematic cases, things that represent
Speaker 1: something much much larger. We aren't really designed, and we've
Speaker 1: never conceived ourselves as a sort of general customer service
Speaker 1: type of infrastructure. With twenty board members and you know,
Speaker 1: about fifty staff, there's no way we could possibly UM
Speaker 1: here every single one of those million plus appeals. UM.
Speaker 1: It just wouldn't be sustainable. But what we can do
Speaker 1: is pick up UM, you know, a set of cases
Speaker 1: every year which are then having a much wider area
Speaker 1: of impact on the company, and that ultimately will then
Speaker 1: see the impact on in um potentially millions of of
Speaker 1: other you know, situations that are playing out every day
Speaker 1: on Facebook and Instagram. So it's like it's like setting
Speaker 1: precedent almost where you can say, all right, we take
Speaker 1: this one case which is very specific here, but we
Speaker 1: can generalize the decision whether we uphold or overturned whatever
Speaker 1: Facebook's action was, and that in turn sets the precedent
Speaker 1: where similar cases that follow this should go along the
Speaker 1: same general pathway. I see the real value of that,
Speaker 1: especially again, like talking about a company as large as
Speaker 1: as Meta is UM. I mean, everyone knows, there's just
Speaker 1: it's impossible for that company to monitor everything that's posted.
Speaker 1: It's just that's not practical at all. But being able
Speaker 1: to set these rules and be able to say, yes, this,
Speaker 1: this is a valid application of your policy, and to
Speaker 1: UH to send that message to the company so that
Speaker 1: it can continue to do that and UH and in
Speaker 1: the knowledge that it's doing the right thing according to
Speaker 1: the rules that's set up or as is the case,
Speaker 1: I think, I think more than I think more often
Speaker 1: than not, in the cases that have been heard. We've
Speaker 1: actually seen an overturning of Facebook's decision where it's really
Speaker 1: seeing the message of you don't you don't have this
Speaker 1: right on this one. That's right, you need to re
Speaker 1: examine that's right. I mean, you know, well, well more
Speaker 1: than half of the cases we've taken on, we've we've
Speaker 1: ended up overturning the company. Um. And I think in
Speaker 1: the recommendations, um, you know, going back to that, well
Speaker 1: more than half of the recommendations we've given to the company,
Speaker 1: they've agreed to those recommendations and they've committed to doing
Speaker 1: them or they've already um, you know, implemented them. And
Speaker 1: I think, um, that that is a powerful sign that
Speaker 1: the board is working, that we are starting to have
Speaker 1: an impact on those bigger issues. UM. When we talk
Speaker 1: about cases, people often gravitate naturally to the part where
Speaker 1: we overturned the company, um, or we we upheld them
Speaker 1: the binding aspect of the decision itself on a specific
Speaker 1: bit of content. I think lot of the really interesting
Speaker 1: impactful work of the board comes in terms of our recommendations.
Speaker 1: So there's more than a hundred detailed pieces of guidance
Speaker 1: that we've given to the company. Because that's where um,
Speaker 1: you have the chance to shape those broader standards and
Speaker 1: how they're enforced to really deliver a lot of very detailed,
Speaker 1: practical guidance to the company, which of course is a recommendation.
Speaker 1: They don't have to follow it, but they do have to, um,
Speaker 1: you know, commit to studying it, you know, um, you
Speaker 1: know for real, and and to communicate transparently, um, what
Speaker 1: they're going to do with those recommendations we've given to them,
Speaker 1: and the company has been pretty good about doing that
Speaker 1: up till now. Well and and again to think back
Speaker 1: on just the way tech companies grow from my perspective, generally,
Speaker 1: I see uh kind of a probably a seventy thirty
Speaker 1: split of engineers really pushing an idea which ends up
Speaker 1: blossoming and perhaps even going to to the beloved unicorn status,
Speaker 1: and then maybe marketing which is really pushing the high
Speaker 1: bug thing. But but you know, that's that that the
Speaker 1: whole process, you know, it's all about growth, growth, growth,
Speaker 1: and you eventually hit a point where you have grown
Speaker 1: larger than what you are easily able to manage, whether
Speaker 1: it's because you've expanded into other markets, like just going
Speaker 1: into Europe and the g d p R considerations you
Speaker 1: have to have, Like these are all things that I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people just don't take into account
Speaker 1: early on. And so I definitely see that that value
Speaker 1: coming in again because reaching out and creating this this
Speaker 1: organization where you have representatives from all over the world.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know that a lot of people have
Speaker 1: harped on the fact that I think the United States
Speaker 1: has the most number of representatives on the board as
Speaker 1: it currently stands, but it the board is made up
Speaker 1: of people from all over right, that's right. Absolutely. I
Speaker 1: think about one quarter of our board currently, UM, you
Speaker 1: know comes from the United States. UM. You know, I
Speaker 1: think that reflects partly you know, global inequities and the
Speaker 1: fact that you just have a disproportionate number of you know,
Speaker 1: experts and institutions that generate expertise, UM, which are located
Speaker 1: in the West. UM. But every member of the board
Speaker 1: I think has you know, extraordinary skills and expertise and UM.
Speaker 1: Certainly in the next round of members, we're looking to
Speaker 1: continue expanding the diversity off the board. Well. And that's
Speaker 1: nice too, because again in in tech companies in particular,
Speaker 1: diversity is an issue that we have seen come up
Speaker 1: again and again where we, or rather a lack of
Speaker 1: diversity has frequently been an issue. So making certain that
Speaker 1: that becomes UH and a priority is really refreshing to
Speaker 1: be able to break free of that very narrow view
Speaker 1: of the world that some companies can develop due to
Speaker 1: a just a lack of perspectives. It's not consciously ignoring things,
Speaker 1: but just because of you know, the actual individual backgrounds. UM.
Speaker 1: I wanted to talk also about actually the process of
Speaker 1: considering a case, like what is how does the board
Speaker 1: do that? As I understand it, there they have a
Speaker 1: focus group essentially that looks at a case in great scrutiny.
Speaker 1: That's right. So when a case comes into the board,
Speaker 1: we convene a panel and it's five members UM. The
Speaker 1: membership of these panels is regularly rotating UM, and you
Speaker 1: have a sort of cross section of expertise in different
Speaker 1: backgrounds represented within those panels. You always have at least
Speaker 1: one member of the panel who's coming from the region
Speaker 1: where that content you know is UM you know coming
Speaker 1: from or or implicates, and that panel takes the initial
Speaker 1: UM you know, review of the case. They spend a
Speaker 1: decent amount of time studying these things in depth and
Speaker 1: trying to reach a sort of provisional decision. The decision
Speaker 1: that they come up with on a case then goes
Speaker 1: before the entire board, So that's another you know, sort
Speaker 1: of check within the board to ensure that we are
Speaker 1: really studying these things with a you know, three sixty
Speaker 1: degree perspective. Um. Every decision is then voted on by
Speaker 1: the entire board, and decisions have to you know, receive
Speaker 1: a majority of sport from the board, otherwise they can
Speaker 1: be sent back and you know, we can convene a
Speaker 1: new panel to look at these things. But I think
Speaker 1: another very important part of this process, which I'll call
Speaker 1: out is the public comment process. So unusually, you know,
Speaker 1: I think for for an entity you know, that's been
Speaker 1: empowered to take on this role, we we also want
Speaker 1: to ensure that we aren't just limiting our expertise to ourselves.
Speaker 1: So we do, you know, obviously provide independent oversight of
Speaker 1: the company. There are many many more points of view
Speaker 1: though from the world that we thought it was important
Speaker 1: to reflect in the decision making process. So with every
Speaker 1: case and every um you know, policy, um, you know
Speaker 1: that we're we're working to review, we are going out
Speaker 1: to civil society UM, two academics UM too, regular users
Speaker 1: of these platforms and saying, if you have a point
Speaker 1: of view, share it with us. UM. So we have
Speaker 1: this process called the public comment process, and we get
Speaker 1: really valuable comments thus submitted by people all over the world. UM.
Speaker 1: You know cases from the Middle East. UM. You know,
Speaker 1: we've received you know, really really valuable input from grassroots
Speaker 1: you know organizations, UM, from countries all over the region. UM.
Speaker 1: When we have the big Trump case looking at whether
Speaker 1: President Trump's access to Facebook and Instagram should be restored,
Speaker 1: we had over nine thousand comments, you know, delivered from
Speaker 1: around the world. So we had you know, everyone from
Speaker 1: you know, members of the public, you know, to people
Speaker 1: who are in the U. S. Congress are submitting very
Speaker 1: detailed guidance and what they thought were the implications on
Speaker 1: free speech, UM and human rights. So I think the
Speaker 1: board has UM, you know, a process that's designed to
Speaker 1: reflect our own expertise and to you know, bring in
Speaker 1: that diversity internally, but we also think about the diversity
Speaker 1: in terms of the external world. We've got a bit
Speaker 1: more to talk about with the Facebook Oversight Board after
Speaker 1: the following break. One of the big problems Meta had
Speaker 1: was that it failed to have a policy in place
Speaker 1: that would allow sort of an indefinite ban, and that
Speaker 1: really what Meta needed to do was either set a
Speaker 1: firm limit on what the band was or to just
Speaker 1: go ahead and call it a lifelong ban. But it
Speaker 1: could not exist in this sort of nebulous, vague banning condition.
Speaker 1: And I remember when that came out, I saw a
Speaker 1: lot of knee jerk reactions all across the board, like
Speaker 1: in various ways, but to me, it was really nailing
Speaker 1: home for the first time in my experience what the
Speaker 1: oversight board was doing in terms of metas policies, and
Speaker 1: that it's saying, there are cases that are falling outside
Speaker 1: of your of your rules, and you have to you
Speaker 1: have to craft the rules to cover these cases. Otherwise
Speaker 1: there's no way to say whether it's fair or not
Speaker 1: you don't cover it. That's exactly right. There was a
Speaker 1: very important principle at stake here, right, which is that
Speaker 1: the rules should apply to everyone, and everyone also includes
Speaker 1: the company. So the rules exist to UM you know,
Speaker 1: govern the way that users get to use those platforms,
Speaker 1: but they also govern the way Meta should be serving
Speaker 1: their users. UM so that you know the fact that
Speaker 1: the company didn't have clear, transparent, defined standards on how
Speaker 1: to navigate innssy like this. That was a huge gap
Speaker 1: in UM you know, the systems that are designed to
Speaker 1: serve their users and UM you know. Ultimately, it pushed
Speaker 1: the company to go and rewrite those rules and to
Speaker 1: create new UM you know, processes and standards, which I
Speaker 1: think will serve them much better in future situations where
Speaker 1: they have to navigate these very very thorny issues. You know, Ultimately,
Speaker 1: if you don't write down the rules and everyone can't
Speaker 1: see them and you know, see them transparently for what
Speaker 1: they are, it makes it much more likely that a
Speaker 1: big company like Meta is going to be able to
Speaker 1: get away with not treating their users fairly. I do
Speaker 1: think it was an important point to really defend UM
Speaker 1: you know. The board also said that the suspension UM
Speaker 1: you know it was correct, so it was the correct
Speaker 1: move to go and suspend him um you know quickly
Speaker 1: from access to Facebook and Instagram. But despite that, there
Speaker 1: was still you know, bigger you know principles at stake,
Speaker 1: and the company didn't think through the long term consequences
Speaker 1: of how they did it right. Yeah, it makes me
Speaker 1: think and you may not get this reference. Actually, a
Speaker 1: lot of my listeners might not get this reference, but
Speaker 1: it makes me think of of Calvin Ball, which was
Speaker 1: a thing in the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, and
Speaker 1: it was a game that this little boy named Calvin
Speaker 1: would play where he literally would make up rules as
Speaker 1: the game was being played, and there was no way
Speaker 1: to know how to win the game because he was
Speaker 1: the one making the rules in real time as the
Speaker 1: game's being played out. And I have a feeling that
Speaker 1: that was kind of how we were seeing meta with
Speaker 1: some of these policies too, and that there was obviously
Speaker 1: this huge external pressure on the company to take action.
Speaker 1: Uh and and the company obviously was already in a
Speaker 1: space where they're this external pressure had been building for
Speaker 1: quite some time, particularly here in the United States. I mean,
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg had to appear before the Senate a couple of
Speaker 1: times leading up to this, and so there obviously was
Speaker 1: this call to action. But again, until you have those
Speaker 1: transparent rules that everyone understands and applies to everyone, taking
Speaker 1: action on its own isn't enough. It's it's something that
Speaker 1: could easily be reversed, because if if things swing a
Speaker 1: different way, then the company can stand accused of unfairly
Speaker 1: applying rules to certain people. In fact, we've seen that
Speaker 1: discourse rise as well. Absolutely, I'm going to use that
Speaker 1: Calvin Ball analogy now, Um, I mean that's fantastic. We're
Speaker 1: basically we are designed to be the anti Calvin Ball mechanism.
Speaker 1: We do not think Calvin Ball is a good you
Speaker 1: know game to play when it comes to speech for
Speaker 1: billions of people online, I do confront this narrative all
Speaker 1: the time, which is is the board of distractions somehow
Speaker 1: from regulation? Like is this something that is getting in
Speaker 1: the way of the bigger fix that we need as
Speaker 1: a society. And I just think that's so you know,
Speaker 1: misplaced as a concern, and and simply the evidence doesn't
Speaker 1: you know, back it up. Um. You know, policy makers
Speaker 1: have been looking at these issues for years, and they've
Speaker 1: been moving at an incredibly glacial pace. And part of
Speaker 1: the reason they have been moving at that place, I
Speaker 1: don't think it's necessarily, you know, due to any ill intent.
Speaker 1: It's because these are massive, deeply complex issues, and it
Speaker 1: takes years to align the interests you know, and then
Speaker 1: to you know codify you know, legislation and to you know,
Speaker 1: build a coalition to support that legislation. The board is
Speaker 1: designed to be something that's solved one small part of
Speaker 1: this overall challenge with social media and to move faster.
Speaker 1: So I mean, we've gone ahead and we've built this
Speaker 1: institution which is starting to serve the users of Facebook
Speaker 1: and Instagram and and you know, the communities who are
Speaker 1: impacted by those platforms. Nothing we're doing is getting in
Speaker 1: the way of policymakers also getting stuck in and you know,
Speaker 1: having you know, a broader you know, sweep at the
Speaker 1: systemic and the structural issues that also impact social media.
Speaker 1: So we really don't see ourselves in any way as
Speaker 1: a substitute for you know, all the effort of policy
Speaker 1: makers and all the work that needs to be done.
Speaker 1: We're a compliment. We're a very small compliment, and you know,
Speaker 1: we're looking forward to seeing, you know, what people come
Speaker 1: up with in terms of other proposals to you know,
Speaker 1: improve social media and deliver a healthier social media environment.
Speaker 1: And yet even though the Board is this this small slice,
Speaker 1: because of its global nature, it is I would argue,
Speaker 1: h more well positioned to tackle its particular mission than
Speaker 1: any regional government would be simply because again you're trying
Speaker 1: to legislate something that has a global reach, but you
Speaker 1: don't have global jurisdiction. So you've got these various nations
Speaker 1: around the world all grappling with similar issues. But unless
Speaker 1: there's some sort of broad agreement across the world as
Speaker 1: to you know, how to go about doing this, it's
Speaker 1: just gonna be very messy for a long time. So
Speaker 1: that's another reason I think it does take a long
Speaker 1: time to see things on the regulatory side take shape,
Speaker 1: uh not to mention in places like here in the
Speaker 1: United States, whenever there's a change in administration, there's a
Speaker 1: massive change in the position of regulations. So you can
Speaker 1: have a regulatory body that uh completely changes shape from
Speaker 1: one administration to another, and then any any progress you
Speaker 1: were making on any particular issue might get reset. So
Speaker 1: I think that having something that's at least addressing part
Speaker 1: of it, and a very important part, even if it
Speaker 1: is a small one, is fantastic. It's at least it's encouraging,
Speaker 1: because I think otherwise the narrative tends to be that
Speaker 1: we're kind of stuck in a quagmire waiting for a solution. Too.
Speaker 1: Something that I think everyone recognizes is a problem. Although
Speaker 1: they may disagree what that problem specifically is, they just
Speaker 1: don't recognize that there is a problem. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: it's it's interesting, Jonathan. I mean we actually this is
Speaker 1: where there's a real consequence of social media and all
Speaker 1: the years we've lived in the digital era in how
Speaker 1: it impacts are thinking, right, Um, all of our attention
Speaker 1: spans have become way shorter. Um. I learned something interesting
Speaker 1: the other day. The average attention span for a goldfish
Speaker 1: is fifteen seconds, and the average attention span for a
Speaker 1: person today is about nine seconds. Um. So like we
Speaker 1: we literally you know, have these incredibly short attention spans.
Speaker 1: And because of that, everyone's looking for really simple solutions
Speaker 1: to complex problems. And I think of this as the
Speaker 1: sort of buzz feed approach to solving problems. We all
Speaker 1: want this one weird trick to solve content moderation, and
Speaker 1: you're hoping there's there's that one weird trick that will
Speaker 1: you do everything for you And I think the experience
Speaker 1: of the last decade has very clear he shown us
Speaker 1: that's not the case at all. There is no UM
Speaker 1: you know, special piece of regulation. There is no um
Speaker 1: you know, incredibly well crafted institution including the oversight board
Speaker 1: that's going to solve all your problems in their totality,
Speaker 1: and anyone who's claiming that you know, either from government
Speaker 1: or from the tech industry, is just lying. Um. We
Speaker 1: can also bits of that problem and together we add
Speaker 1: up to something that's very, very meaningful, and we'll protect
Speaker 1: users and communities. Um. But we should all be realistic
Speaker 1: about what we can do and recognize the scale of
Speaker 1: the challenge. Very well said. I could not agree more.
Speaker 1: I think it's incredibly beneficial for listeners out there. If
Speaker 1: you if you really want to get an understanding of
Speaker 1: how complex this is is simply go and review one
Speaker 1: of the cases that the board tackled and really read
Speaker 1: up on all the different UH factors about it. Because
Speaker 1: you start to really you get past that knee jerk reaction. Right.
Speaker 1: You might initially you have a feeling of this should
Speaker 1: go this way or this should go that way, But
Speaker 1: as you really dive into it and you start to
Speaker 1: pull back and look at the larger implications, then you
Speaker 1: might start to understand there isn't a simple on off switch.
Speaker 1: The world is not a binary system. We cannot treat
Speaker 1: it that way. We have to We have to take
Speaker 1: into consideration all the complexities, including where there may be
Speaker 1: gaps in policy. And that's why there's this this issue,
Speaker 1: because we can't definitively say this is against the rules
Speaker 1: if there are no rules that govern it. So I
Speaker 1: think that if if people do take that time, which
Speaker 1: obviously with the nine second attention span is going to
Speaker 1: be challenging, but they do take that time, they're they're
Speaker 1: going to gain that greater appreciation because I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: guilty of this too, Like I'll see a story pop
Speaker 1: up and very quickly make a judgment, and it's only
Speaker 1: by resisting that urgent and engaging in critical thinking and
Speaker 1: taking those those further steps that I can get past that.
Speaker 1: And I don't do it all the time. I say
Speaker 1: all the time on the show. The two things I
Speaker 1: advocate for the strongest our compassion and critical thinking. I
Speaker 1: think the two of them together absolutely necessary if you
Speaker 1: want to if you want a better world. But even
Speaker 1: though I advocate strongly for it, I also admit fully
Speaker 1: that I am not I'm not a a a perfect
Speaker 1: steward of that approach. Sometimes I fall victim to it too,
Speaker 1: And I really think that by diving in a little
Speaker 1: further and reading up on these things, people can get
Speaker 1: a greater appreciation for the complexities that are involved. UM.
Speaker 1: I certainly do not envy anyone on the board's position.
Speaker 1: I am fascinated by the process. But I cannot imagine
Speaker 1: really dedicating the kind of time and attention to sometimes
Speaker 1: incredibly emotionally charged situations and determining whether or not a
Speaker 1: company's decision on that matter was in line with its
Speaker 1: policy or not. Absolutely, And this this is the challenge,
Speaker 1: right all the board members are human beings. They're all
Speaker 1: looking at the same headlines. We're all looking at. UM.
Speaker 1: These are issues which can be extraordinarily emotive, and there
Speaker 1: is always, you know, an urge today for people to
Speaker 1: make those snap decisions about these things. And the board
Speaker 1: has been designed not just in the extraordinarily impressive people
Speaker 1: who have been added to the board, but in the
Speaker 1: mechanisms that go into making that institution. It's been designs
Speaker 1: that we don't make those snap decisions. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: we provide that thoughtful, you know, measured review of the
Speaker 1: decisions that Meta has made. They have a responsibility to
Speaker 1: act first and to act fast on a lot of
Speaker 1: these issues. But then we're going to come in and
Speaker 1: take a closer look and say, have you thought about this?
Speaker 1: You know, implication for you your users. They used to
Speaker 1: be that slogan which became very popularized and then maligned
Speaker 1: from Facebook, move fast and break things. And I always
Speaker 1: tell my team, half jokingly, only half joking, Lee, that
Speaker 1: all slogan, if that was one, is moved thoughtfully and
Speaker 1: defend human rights, because that's a much better way of
Speaker 1: actually going about doing that well. And again it's one
Speaker 1: of those things where you go from the technical aspect
Speaker 1: of let's make something that's really cool to the application
Speaker 1: aspect of how does this interact with the real world.
Speaker 1: I'd like to wrap this up by sort of asking
Speaker 1: are there are there plans? Like really, right now the
Speaker 1: oversight board is focused primarily upon uh content moderation policies.
Speaker 1: Are their plans for that to expand beyond Facebook's content
Speaker 1: moderation or is that just going to be the primary
Speaker 1: focus of the board from here on out. Yeah, you
Speaker 1: made a very important point in Jonathan, which was about how, um,
Speaker 1: you know, people can lose focus as they scale, and
Speaker 1: so we think of ourselves in many ways as an organization,
Speaker 1: as a startup. We're a very small, you know group
Speaker 1: taking on a very big, you know mission. We've evolved
Speaker 1: enormously over the last couple of years to navigate through
Speaker 1: the sort of organizational and strategic challenges as an organization.
Speaker 1: We think the right thing to do is to stay focused.
Speaker 1: Right now, Meta is a huge challenge. Just getting our
Speaker 1: arms around the mission of the board today is something
Speaker 1: that you know, takes up an enormous amount of work,
Speaker 1: and we want to make sure that we're delivering the
Speaker 1: maximum impact in terms of that original mission before we
Speaker 1: look to expand further. Having said that, you know, we
Speaker 1: absolutely recognize that this is a shared challenge across the industry.
Speaker 1: All the problems that META is dealing with our problems
Speaker 1: that manifest in different ways for other platforms. I mean,
Speaker 1: look at Spotify or Netflix over the last few months
Speaker 1: and all the various controversies and and problems that they've
Speaker 1: they've been experiencing. So UM For now, the way we
Speaker 1: think about it is focused on getting that core mission done,
Speaker 1: share as many of our learnings UM as widely and
Speaker 1: as transparently as possible in a way that can be
Speaker 1: helpful to other companies and down the road, you know,
Speaker 1: over the next you know, coming years, um, I think
Speaker 1: we'll be looking to explore whether there's something else we
Speaker 1: can deliver for companies. And you know, as the Board
Speaker 1: evolves itself and we look to expand the things that
Speaker 1: we're looking at within Facebook and Instagram, they may be
Speaker 1: other things that you know, then coming to focus for
Speaker 1: the rest of the industry and they say, hey, actually,
Speaker 1: maybe the Oversight Board can be helpful for us as
Speaker 1: we develop our plans. Uh. Fascinating. Dex. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining the show and giving us more information
Speaker 1: about the Oversight Board. I have a much greater appreciation
Speaker 1: for what it does now than I did before we
Speaker 1: even started chatting. It was really informative and educational. I
Speaker 1: hope my listeners enjoyed it as well. Great to be here, Jonathan.
Speaker 1: Thanks again to Dex for joining the show. It was
Speaker 1: really interesting to hear about the board's mission directly from
Speaker 1: someone who works with the organization, and it gave me
Speaker 1: a greater appreciation for the scope of the board's job
Speaker 1: as well as the potential impact of its decisions. And
Speaker 1: it really does highlight the necessity to seek out a
Speaker 1: diverse array of perspectives as companies scale up in many ways,
Speaker 1: I totally understand how Facebook could find itself in such
Speaker 1: a complex situation that it required the creation of an
Speaker 1: external entity. I mean, come on, let's let's really be
Speaker 1: real here, cards on the table. Facebook evolved out of
Speaker 1: a tool that was meant to allow male Harvard students
Speaker 1: to rate the attractiveness of female Harvard students. That's why
Speaker 1: the predecessor to Facebook was all about. So that wasn't
Speaker 1: exactly aiming to become a nexus of global communications. And
Speaker 1: the process of growth and scaling and expansion is one
Speaker 1: that happened so quickly that it's not a surprise to
Speaker 1: me that people of the company didn't necessarily realize they
Speaker 1: needed a robust set of policies until problems began to
Speaker 1: pop up. And in many ways, Facebook's path could serve
Speaker 1: as a lesson to other platforms, either to create their
Speaker 1: own independent oversight boards or to incorporate departments that are
Speaker 1: dedicated to the formation and execution of policies and to
Speaker 1: really staff that with a diverse group of perspectives so
Speaker 1: that you can best serve your users. Right, if your
Speaker 1: users are all over the world, then you darn well
Speaker 1: need to have that diversity of perspective in order to
Speaker 1: serve them properly. And I'm sure there will be cases
Speaker 1: where the Oversight Board will make a decision that I
Speaker 1: will have trouble understanding. Uh, there may well be cases
Speaker 1: where I have a fundamental disagreement with the board's conclusion.
Speaker 1: But at the same time I have to account for
Speaker 1: several facts. Namely, while I feel strongly about human rights issues,
Speaker 1: I am by no means an expert, right, I do
Speaker 1: not spend the same amount of time and energy researching
Speaker 1: these cases, nor do I have the background in human
Speaker 1: rights and digital rights that the board members have, And
Speaker 1: the conclusion that the Board comes to could be nested
Speaker 1: in a much deeper problem, one that where they will
Speaker 1: Facebook itself lacks the framework to issue a clear decision
Speaker 1: on the matter, and it might be that the Board
Speaker 1: comes to its decision not because of specific matters with
Speaker 1: the case, but because there are no actual rules that
Speaker 1: govern what Facebook does. And therefore, you know, if there
Speaker 1: are no rules that say Facebook can do this, that's
Speaker 1: a problem. As dex indicated, reality is a complicated and
Speaker 1: messy matter. In the end, I am glad there's an
Speaker 1: independent group holding Facebook accountable, and one that can compel
Speaker 1: Facebook to reverse decisions that on close examination do not
Speaker 1: appear to follow with Facebook's stated rules and goals. I
Speaker 1: do hope to see a more broad application of those
Speaker 1: principles across the web and the tech industry in general. Um,
Speaker 1: that kind of consistency is really important. And again I
Speaker 1: don't anticipate agreeing with every single one of those decisions,
Speaker 1: but at least I can be confident that the decisions
Speaker 1: were made by people who were taking incredible care and
Speaker 1: consideration when judging the matter. Uh, and not just be
Speaker 1: something where you know, it's a moderator who's under intense
Speaker 1: pressure to look through as many comments or or posts
Speaker 1: as they possibly can, and they're just hitting you know,
Speaker 1: delete or or they're leaving alone one after the other
Speaker 1: in order to get through it an incredible backlog, right, Like,
Speaker 1: my heart really goes out to moderators too. We've heard
Speaker 1: some terrible stories about the emotional impact that moderating can
Speaker 1: have on folks who have to go through all these
Speaker 1: different types of posts on Facebook that get reported. Anyway,
Speaker 1: that wraps up this episode. If you have suggestions for
Speaker 1: people I should have on the show or topics I
Speaker 1: should cover, please reach out to me. The best way
Speaker 1: to do that is on Twitter. The handle for the
Speaker 1: show is text Stuff hs W and I'll talk to
Speaker 1: you again really soon. Yeah. Text Stuff is an I
Speaker 1: heart Radio production. For more podcasts from I Heart Radio,
Speaker 1: visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
Speaker 1: you listen to your favorite shows.