Sunday, Feb 28, 2021 - 22:39:55
13 results - (0.000 seconds)

court’ oversight board:

    Can Facebook meaningfully have a Supreme Court? The title of a new feature in The New Yorker, written by law professor Kate Klonick, implies that the answer is yes. The story is more complicated. The feature is called “Inside the making of Facebook’s Supreme Court,” and it’s an unprecedentedly detailed look at the Facebook Oversight Board, a Facebook-funded semi-independent panel that can overrule Facebook takedown decisions. The Oversight Board launched in October, and it issued its first decisions in January, saying Facebook had made the wrong call on four removed posts. In the coming months, it will make its highest-profile decision to date: whether Facebook should restore the account of former president Donald Trump. But as Klonick lays out, its actual power is complex and contested. Employees worried a powerful court could accidentally kill Facebook Klonick writes candidly about months of heated debate over how the Oversight Board should function....
    The Facebook oversight board, popularly known as the “Facebook Supreme Court,” the body established by the company to check its content moderation decisions, has ruled on its first cases. The oversight board is reportedly set to consider whether or not to uphold Facebook’s decision to permanently ban Donald Trump, although it is currently unclear when a decision on the matter will be made. As Breitbart News previously reported, the oversight board is packed with left-wingers, including the former editor of the left-wing British newspaper The Guardian, a former left-wing prime minister of Denmark, and someone who once compared Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. The oversight board was the brainchild of Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, one of the Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses in the first impeachment of President Trump. The former editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, reportedly told fellow board members that they should “start with the supremacy of free speech.” Yet...
    Facebook's supreme court said in its first rulings Thursday that the tech giant was wrong to remove four of the five pieces of content it had reviewed.  The left-leaning Oversight Board said the social network was wrong to take down post for violating rules on hate speech and harmful COVID-19 misinformation.  It overturned decisions to remove a post with photos of a deceased child that included commentary on China's treatment of Uighur Muslims. The board also overturned a decision to remove an alleged quote from Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. Facebook had removed that for violating its policy on 'dangerous individuals and organizations.' It also said the removal of a post in a group claiming certain drugs could cure COVID-19, which criticized the French government's response to the pandemic was wrong.  And it ruled that Instagram photos showing female nipples that the user in Brazil said aimed to raise awareness of...
    Facebook has stated that it is sending its recent decision to permanently blacklist Donald Trump to its “independent oversight board” for review. The oversight board, popularly referred to as the platform’s “supreme court,” is packed with leftists such as the former editor-in-chief of the Guardian and a “human rights expert” who is part of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. In a recent blog post, tech giant Facebook stated that it would be sending its decision to blacklist Donald Trump to an independent oversight board. The oversight board is a semi-independent body that Facebook set up to review the company’s rulings. We think our decision to suspend former President Trump was right, but we don’t think we should make these calls on our own. Given the significance, we referred this decision to the @OversightBoard. During review, Mr. Trump’s access will remain suspended. https://t.co/CnMa2PYoDq — Facebook Newsroom (@fbnewsroom) January 21, 2021 In the...
    Facebook is passing the buck by allowing its 'supreme court' oversight board to decide whether Donald Trump should be permanently banned from the social media platform in what will be a major test for the recently formed panel. Trump had his Facebook and Instagram accounts suspended in the wake of the deadly January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol at the hands of MAGA mob rioters.  The social media giant said on Thursday that it stands by its decision to suspend Trump's accounts but will defer to the quasi-independent oversight board, which is known informally as the Facebook 'supreme court', to determine if it should be upheld permanently.    The board was created last year to rule on thorny content issues, such as when posts constitute hate speech, or - in this case - if the major decision to ban a world leader was the right one.  Its ruling on Trump,...
    President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media before boarding Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2021.Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images Facebook on Thursday announced that it will refer its decision to indefinitely suspend the account of former President Donald Trump to its newly instituted Oversight Board. The independent body will review the decision to suspend Trump and make a binding decision on whether the account will be reinstated. Until a decision is made, Trump's account will remain suspended, the company said in a blog post. The board will begin accepting public comments on the case next week, it said in a tweet. The board will have up to 90 days to make its decision, but the board's members have committed to move as quickly as possible, a spokesman for the board told CNBC. A...
    Facebook’s Oversight Board, an independent body that reviews Facebook moderation decisions, has accepted its first cases. The six appeals involve content removed under Facebook’s hate speech rules, nudity ban, and misinformation policies. They’re now open for seven days of public comment, after which the board will determine whether the posts should have been removed. Most of the cases involve users outside the US posting non-English content — a known weak point for Facebook moderation — and at least two hinge on the nuance of someone publishing hate content to implicitly criticize it. One user posted screenshots of offensive tweets from former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, for instance, allegedly to raise awareness of “horrible words.” Another post involved a user who shared an alleged Joseph Goebbels quote, but who appealed by saying they were comparing Goebbels’s words to a “fascist model” in US politics. Each case will be referred to...
    Tawakkol Karman, a member of Facebook’s oversight board, also known as the “Facebook Supreme Court,” said that a loss for President Donald Trump would bring an end to a “wave of hate and intolerance” across the world. The “oversight board” a semi-independent body the social network created earlier this year that allegedly has the power to decide whether content banned by Facebook stays banned or is restored on appeal. “With #Trump’s fall, the wave of hate and intolerance will end not only in #America but also across the world. USA is moving towards ending one of the fiercest waves of hate in modern history” said oversight board member Tawakkol Karman. With #Trump’s fall, the wave of hate and intolerance will end not only in #America but also across the world. USA is moving towards ending one of the fiercest waves of hate in modern history. #Elections2020 — Tawakkol Karman (@TawakkolKarman)...
    Facebook’s Oversight Board, often referred to as the platform’s “supreme court,” has announced a new process that would allow users to escalate content removal appeals directly to the Oversight Board if they feel that their posts have been removed unfairly. In a recent announcement, Facebook’s Oversight Board announced that users that have exhausted the content removal appeals processes of Facebook and Instagram can escalate their complaints directly to the Oversight Board. Facebook itself can now also refer cases to the Oversight Board for a decision on whether or not to allow it on the platform. The Oversight Board states in the announcement: Today we’re announcing an important milestone in the progress of the Oversight Board. From today, if your content is removed from Facebook or Instagram and you have exhausted the company’s appeal process, you can challenge this decision by appealing to the Oversight Board. Similarly, Facebook can now refer...
    Facebook’s new oversight board, commonly referred to as its “Supreme Court,” will be tasked with determining which content should be removed from the site. It will be staffed with leftist professors from some of America’s top law schools. According to a report by Campus Reform, Facebook’s new Oversight Board will be staffed with law school professors that have donated to progressive candidates and causes. Columbia University Law School Professor Jamal Greene and University of Oklahoma Law Professor Evelyn Aswad are amongst the American legal experts that have been named to the Oversight Board. Greene has donated to the campaigns of Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton. Aswad has donated to progressive causes through a fundraising organization called ActBlue. Stanford Law School Professor Pamela Karlan, who was recently named to the Oversight Board, was an aggressive proponent of the campaign to impeach President Donald Trump. During a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee,...
    Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the composition of the oversight board created to help Puerto Rico through its fiscal crisis, rejecting claims that the members' appointments violated the U.S. Constitution because they were not subject to Senate confirmation. The decision from the high court was unanimous. Writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer said that while the Constitution's Appointments Clause "constrains the appointments power to all 'Officers of the United States,' even when those officers exercise power in or related to Puerto Rico," it does not restrict the appointment of local officers that Congress vests with primarily local duties. Trending News Trump briefly taken to White House bunker during protests Friday Floyd family attorney says officer should face 1st-degree murder charge Trump shares video of supporter's "dead Democrat" comment Trump responds to George Floyd protests Twitter flags Trump's "shooting" tweet for glorifying violence "The local nature of...
    The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the authority of a special government board with oversight to deal with Puerto Rico’s debt restructuring, which came after a devastating financial crisis. The court unanimously ruled that the board members were not federal officers whose appointments required Senate confirmation because their duties were locally focused. SUPREME COURT REJECTS CHALLENGE TO LIMITS ON CHURCH SERVICES; ROBERTS SIDES WITH LIBERALS “The Board’s statutory responsibilities consist of primarily local duties, namely, representing Puerto Rico in bankruptcy proceedings and supervising aspects of Puerto Rico’s fiscal and budgetary policies,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court’s opinion. “We therefore find that the Board members are not 'Officers of the United States.'” The court likened this to when Congress creates local government offices in Puerto Rico. “Congress has both made local law directly and also created structures of local government, staffed by local officials, who themselves have made and...
    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the oversight board established by Congress to help Puerto Rico out of a devastating financial crisis that has been exacerbated by the coronavirus outbreak, recent earthquakes and damage from Hurricane Maria in 2017. The justices reversed a lower court ruling that threatened to throw the island’s recovery efforts into chaos. In a unanimous holding, the court will allow the oversight board’s work to pull the island out of the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history to proceed. At one point, Puerto Rico faced more than $100 billion in debt and unfunded pension obligations. The case stemmed from a constitutional challenge to the oversight board’s composition led by hedge funds that invested in Puerto Rican bonds. A lower court ruled last year that board members were appointed in violation of the Constitution because they were not confirmed by the Senate. The president...
1