Facebook’s advisory board: beautifully orchestrated reputation building. Now what?
On May 7th, Facebook announced the first 20 members of its oversight board, which has been established to provide independent governance on Facebook content. Users can appeal directly to this ‘Supreme Court’ style setup which will hear cases and make rulings. While most commentary focuses on the ins and outs of how the board will work and who is on it, Protocol explores the structure of the entity and whether it could end up governing the whole internet.
Key points:
- Facebook has invested $130 million in setting up the advisory board as a trust, a separate legal entity from Facebook that can take investment from other organisations and set up companies of its own (such as oversight boards for other platforms needing to make content moderation decisions).
- They have appointed 20 founding members including an ex-PM of Denmark, a Yemeni Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and a former US federal judge. Between them, these nominees have lived in 27 countries and speak 29 languages amongst them. These people will appoint a further 20 members to the board.
- Other tech companies have been involved in ‘global workshops’ as the entity was designed, including YouTube, who could choose to benefit from Facebook’s massive investment and avoid government regulation by joining the trust.
The ‘launch’ of the Facebook advisory board has been a two-year masterclass in rebuilding credibility. It has been a deliberate and delicate approach that now enters a new, unchartered phase.
It all started in 2018, when Zuckerberg floated the idea, following his appearance at Senate committee hearings in the US, “…what I’d really like to get to is an independent appeal. You can imagine some sort of structure, almost like a Supreme Court, that is made up of independent folks who don’t work for Facebook, who ultimately make the final judgment call on what should be acceptable speech in a community that reflects the social norms and values of people all around the world.”
By positioning the goal as a ‘Supreme Court-like structure’, Facebook took the first step in helping people to understand how this entity would work and borrowing stacks of credibility in the process. The Supreme Court – steeped in history and long representing justice and fairness, set the bar high.
The announcement last week of the 20 founding members has delivered on that high bar. These are high-profile members with impressive resumes who cross the political, social and cultural spectrum. Some members have been vocal in their criticism of Facebook, again building credibility that this is the real deal.
But maintaining this reputation will be tricky. This ‘court’ needs to operate globally, upholding human rights laws, under the governments that can, at times, contradict such laws. Its credibility will be tested with every case it hears, as it works within political, cultural and technological contexts that challenge human rights principles.
Facebook has put a stake in the ground when it comes to self-regulation, at a time when tech platforms and governments seek credible ways to regulate. It has been a sustained and successful exercise in building trust, that will now be tested as commentary shifts to the cases they hear, and the message can no longer be delicately refined.
Will the pressure to strengthen governance quickly mean that other platforms will adopt this solution in the short term, based on its reputational status, or assess its efficacy over time?
