As Facebook explores a way to establish more independent oversight for the corporate, chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg is proposing a kind of court system where appeals will be elevated if people disagree on how controversial content is treated.
Facebook released a brand new research report on Thursday summarizing its findings based on input from over 2,000 people in 88 countries. In January, the corporate solicited public and expert feedback on a way to create a separate body that can impose binding decisions independent of its executives’ opinions.
The company has come under attack for its inconsistency in the means it handles content that’s violent, viewed as offensive or just patently false. The problem came up at Facebook’s annual shareholder meeting last month, as investors demanded to understand how Zuckerberg, who has majority voting management over Facebook’s shares, determines what speech is allowed on the site.
In a pre-recorded conversation released alongside the report, Zuckerberg said that users should be able to address their issues on a particular post with “a set of appealers.” If the person continues to be unsatisfied with the result, following step would be to elevate the appeal to an independent board. Zuckerberg said the board would get to decide on an exact number of cases per year to take on, although that figure has been the source of discussion during the research process.
Facebook plans to unleash a final charter in August, and will use this research as a guide. The final charter will be followed by a test period of the board’s “operations and decision-making functions” prior to an orientation for new board members, in step with Facebook’s diagram showing the steps for forming the board.
One consideration is the size of the oversight board. Facebook has proposed that it consist of 40 members, although the corporate said diversity and representation of the site’s users are vital factors.
In terms of the appeals process, Zuckerberg said he anticipates the board will have employees that helps prioritize appeals so that there’s a distinction between “precedent-setting” problems and specific items of content that require to be handled instantly.
“We need a mechanism to basically be able to refer problems that we see to the board and have a relatively fast turnaround that could have an effect on whether or not something could have an imminent impact,” he said.