Now here’s a really good example of how infighting can actually lead to something better. So, get this – Meta’s own Oversight Board essentially roasted the company due to how it has a ‘separate’ moderation system for high-profile users, which can sometimes see violative content from celebrities and politicians strung up on the platform for months, whereas the same content for regular users would only take days or even just a few hours before it gets taken down. The absolute state. 

No Bias

The board’s comments are part of its review of Meta’s ‘Cross Check’ System, which adds another layer of moderation for high-profile users. Here’s the nitty gritty (slight) – Meta oversees more than 100 million enforcement actions every day. Just from the sheer volume of observations, some things will slip through, with some posts being removed when they shouldn’t have been and vice versa. High-profile users often have larger audiences, thus usually having more influence and sway over discussions. Meta has an extra, specialized moderation system to double-check enforcement decisions for these users. In short, celebrities are held to a higher standard than regular users, which is unfair, but also logically understandable.

The system makes sense and is a good, last quality checkpoint, provided that it works as intended 100% of the time. But it doesn’t…

The Wall Street Journal discovered this alternative process last year, highlighting certain system flaws that effectively saw some high-profile users held to a higher standard and basically left unmoderated. Meanwhile, regular users were wrestled into submission with content removals. That prompted Meta to refer its Cross Checks system to its oversight board to determine whether or not it’s a fair/reasonable approach. 

The board then proceeded to provide key recommendations to immediately make the process better, based on its highlights of flaws in several areas: 

  • Delayed removal of violating content.

  • Unequal access to discretionary policies and enforcement.

  • Failure to track core metrics.

  • Lack of transparency around how Cross Check works.

Simply put, the Oversight Board wants Meta to revamp the system and treat celebrities the same way that they treat regular users. The board has so far not failed in constantly reiterating for Meta to be more open with how it operates and manages the systems that people interact with daily, which is really the key to a lot of issues at hand.

If platforms were just a bit more open about how their algorithms and recommendations work, and how they make their decisions about whether or not to approve content posts, then that might make it easier and more justified when actions are taken. However, at the same time, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has noted that this might also prompt even more borderline behavior. He also has a point – being more open about the specifics might urge some users to maximize engagement by pushing their boundaries as far as they can.

The Wrap

From a rules perspective, Meta does need to have more specific policies and explainers that detail violations. While it has already improved on this front, the Oversight Board has repeatedly noted that it must improve context, and add more transparency. Another consideration here should be the scale of the work needed; after all, providing insights and regulatory supervision for more than 2.5 billion users is already a monumental task. While there’s no easy answer, Meta, as far as the Oversight Board is concerned, should work towards providing the tiniest bit more insight where it can and ensuring that all users understand the rules.

Sources 

https://bit.ly/3h49jkg