The birth of Facebook’s Independent Oversight Board poses many issues for law scholar: this is the first example of private Supreme Court inside a big corporation able to engrave on fundamental rights of the users above all freedom of speech. The Oversight Board is a part of Facebook’s content moderation system: a self-regulation model that guarantee responsiveness, flexibility, and targeted intervention so that social is capable to adjust speedily the rules as necessary when new problems emerge. Like all things in this world the creation of Board has pros and cons. About pros the presence of the Oversight Board meets the need to check on possible mistakes committed by human content moderation or algorithms. The choice of this appellate procedure guarantees a high level of expertise able to verify the correctness of Facebook when the removal or blocking the content or an account. The board, in fact, in its decisions try to understand not only the single word but the context in which, the expressions, are deployed by users. Only after this evaluation the Board assess the conformity to the Community Standards and Values of the platform. The Board has also the duty to invite Facebook to clarify his Community Standards rule that in many cases are too vague and ambiguous. The cons are the lack of Independence of the Board (not intellectual but financial); the absence of procedural guarantees such as right to defence, the discretion to choose which requests it will review and decide upon and what are the priorities that are balanced when the company makes the choice; the lack of sanctions in case of the default by Facebook about the decisions of Independent Oversight Board. However, the Oversight Board decide only on the violation of the Standards Community and Values of social network while, in case of infringement of local law, the blocking or removal are determined by human content moderation or using algorithms. This model of content moderation is characterized by opacity and is not subject to the same reviews and opportunities for appeal as the privately ordered content moderation system for its community standards. In both cases we are witnessing a progressive ‘judicialization’ of conflict between platform and users that improve the risk of ‘delegating private actors’ quasi-regulatory powers’, (Pollicino and De Gregorio). So that this new type of private adjudication could expand areas of powers escaping democratic oversight and leaving fundamental rights without guarantee of appropriate balancing which only judges and public authorities could ensure. Is the Digital Single Act a new regulatory model able to provide a virtuous relationship between hard and soft law?
:The challenges of the private adjudication: hard law versus (or with) soft law in the European legal order / Abbondante, Fulvia. - (2022). (Intervento presentato al convegno The Constitutional status of the private internet authorities before a new public-sovereignty tenutosi a Università di Joahannesburg nel 08.12.2022).
:The challenges of the private adjudication: hard law versus (or with) soft law in the European legal order.
Fulvia Abbondante
2022
Abstract
The birth of Facebook’s Independent Oversight Board poses many issues for law scholar: this is the first example of private Supreme Court inside a big corporation able to engrave on fundamental rights of the users above all freedom of speech. The Oversight Board is a part of Facebook’s content moderation system: a self-regulation model that guarantee responsiveness, flexibility, and targeted intervention so that social is capable to adjust speedily the rules as necessary when new problems emerge. Like all things in this world the creation of Board has pros and cons. About pros the presence of the Oversight Board meets the need to check on possible mistakes committed by human content moderation or algorithms. The choice of this appellate procedure guarantees a high level of expertise able to verify the correctness of Facebook when the removal or blocking the content or an account. The board, in fact, in its decisions try to understand not only the single word but the context in which, the expressions, are deployed by users. Only after this evaluation the Board assess the conformity to the Community Standards and Values of the platform. The Board has also the duty to invite Facebook to clarify his Community Standards rule that in many cases are too vague and ambiguous. The cons are the lack of Independence of the Board (not intellectual but financial); the absence of procedural guarantees such as right to defence, the discretion to choose which requests it will review and decide upon and what are the priorities that are balanced when the company makes the choice; the lack of sanctions in case of the default by Facebook about the decisions of Independent Oversight Board. However, the Oversight Board decide only on the violation of the Standards Community and Values of social network while, in case of infringement of local law, the blocking or removal are determined by human content moderation or using algorithms. This model of content moderation is characterized by opacity and is not subject to the same reviews and opportunities for appeal as the privately ordered content moderation system for its community standards. In both cases we are witnessing a progressive ‘judicialization’ of conflict between platform and users that improve the risk of ‘delegating private actors’ quasi-regulatory powers’, (Pollicino and De Gregorio). So that this new type of private adjudication could expand areas of powers escaping democratic oversight and leaving fundamental rights without guarantee of appropriate balancing which only judges and public authorities could ensure. Is the Digital Single Act a new regulatory model able to provide a virtuous relationship between hard and soft law?I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
