There were some strong allegations on Facebook that its cross-check system gives special treatment to political leaders, celebs, athletes, and other VIPs. However, the platform rejected these claims, but it also agreed that there are some flaws in this structure. Therefore, the platform has asked the oversight board to reevaluate the policies and suggest an improved way to check the content on the platform.
The platform says that it checks billions of content daily. Almost forty thousand personnel are working on safety and protection. Further, the platform has also introduced a refined technology to deal with content implementation. Facebook also introduced the double-checking system to avoid major mistakes, such as giving an opportunity to VIPs to post whatever they want. The platform says that it is trying its best to improve this process and further the suggestions of an independent board will also play an important role in this regard.
The oversight board asked Facebook publicly to provide more information about the system operation, after the issuance of the WSJ report, and this seems to be the response of that by the platform. However, the platform gave briefings about the cross-check structure. Now the independent board wants more clarity and some answers about the working of the system. There was a perception that the platform is excessively prejudiced by politicians. Things became more heated when Facebook did not take any severe action on Donald Trump’s remark due to the reason of newsworthiness and significance to the public.
The CEO of the platform also stated back in the year 2019 that Facebook does not fact-check the political advertisement. It is not because of the reason that the platform wants to assist politicians, but the main reason behind that the people should see exactly what the politicians are saying. If the content is newsworthy the platform will not remove it. However, the platform’s stand always makes a mistake in the name of freedom of expression. These recent developments and allegations forced the platform to reevaluate its policies.
Facebook’s wider view is that there should be some authorized regulation and the platform does not want to implement its own policies without any review. This can be a superior way to go on. However, it can be possible that this board might take the decision power from the hands of the platform. But the responsibility will still remain in the hands of Facebook to decide what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. It is hoped that this approach will help the platform to deal with these controversies.
The platform says that it checks billions of content daily. Almost forty thousand personnel are working on safety and protection. Further, the platform has also introduced a refined technology to deal with content implementation. Facebook also introduced the double-checking system to avoid major mistakes, such as giving an opportunity to VIPs to post whatever they want. The platform says that it is trying its best to improve this process and further the suggestions of an independent board will also play an important role in this regard.
The oversight board asked Facebook publicly to provide more information about the system operation, after the issuance of the WSJ report, and this seems to be the response of that by the platform. However, the platform gave briefings about the cross-check structure. Now the independent board wants more clarity and some answers about the working of the system. There was a perception that the platform is excessively prejudiced by politicians. Things became more heated when Facebook did not take any severe action on Donald Trump’s remark due to the reason of newsworthiness and significance to the public.
The CEO of the platform also stated back in the year 2019 that Facebook does not fact-check the political advertisement. It is not because of the reason that the platform wants to assist politicians, but the main reason behind that the people should see exactly what the politicians are saying. If the content is newsworthy the platform will not remove it. However, the platform’s stand always makes a mistake in the name of freedom of expression. These recent developments and allegations forced the platform to reevaluate its policies.
Facebook’s wider view is that there should be some authorized regulation and the platform does not want to implement its own policies without any review. This can be a superior way to go on. However, it can be possible that this board might take the decision power from the hands of the platform. But the responsibility will still remain in the hands of Facebook to decide what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. It is hoped that this approach will help the platform to deal with these controversies.
