The Oversight Board that Meta relies on for a lot of its content moderation decisions is now planning to make some serious changes.
This entails reviewing a greater number of cases and even fast-tracking the response time to just 48 hours. According to them, this might be the right solution. Enhancing the number of decisions and the rate at which they’re being done gives them the liberty to handle bigger issues related to content moderation.
The board also mentioned recently through its blog post that it hoped to give out a faster response in situations that involved real-world effects taking place at that moment in time.
So many previous versions of this Oversight Board entailed the desire to expedite the reviews generated by apps like Instagram and Facebook. However, we are yet to see that take place until now for content moderation issues.
Under this newly revised charter by the Oversight Board, Meta says it hopes to refer more cases to the platform with key details and explanations regarding why they felt the need for urgent reviews in the first place. And in case the head of the board does plan to take on the case, Meta would be bound to the ultimate decision as per state laws.
For this to occur, an entire panel would come forward and review the cases and produce decisions within a deadline of just two days. But in some cases, it might take as long as a month for those cases to require a little extra in-depth approach. Their targeted timeframe is outlined to be 90 days for those cases that are very complex in nature.
No public comments would be taken into account for such cases, thanks to the great time concerns attached. Moreover, it might end up carrying out faster reviews for the sake of appeals from users.
Other decisions spoke about the board making great plans to publish decisions taken during the first summary meeting. And after that, the committee would select an array of cases that would be up to the board for consideration. But in most cases, Meta does end up altering the original decision. On average, they’ve seen it occur 80 times, just so content that was ranked gets restored.
As we move ahead, the committee would be selecting an array of such cases that Meta may have reversed. And then a new panel would review that and set forward summary decisions. This entails plenty of details about the original decision that Meta ignored and also no more consideration of any public comments would be entertained.
It’s clear that the board is not interested in repeating the mistakes of the past and wants to ensure that such cases serve as important lessons.
Despite the fact that the board was formed new years back, it has managed to publish 35 decisions linked to Meta’s Facebook and Instagram removing content or allowing it to stay on the apps. Just last year, we saw Meta put ahead nearly 191,000 cases.
These new measures don’t mean that the board will review more cases than what has been seen in the past. Instead, it would now be better able to review those cases deemed urgent at a faster pace. And we feel that is what the entire purpose should be from day one as compared to the decision pending for months.
By the looks of it, the new rules being laid out seem sensible and a positive approach for Meta to move ahead in its content moderation strategies.
Read next: 8 Growth Hacks for Social Media Marketers (Based On Data)
This entails reviewing a greater number of cases and even fast-tracking the response time to just 48 hours. According to them, this might be the right solution. Enhancing the number of decisions and the rate at which they’re being done gives them the liberty to handle bigger issues related to content moderation.
The board also mentioned recently through its blog post that it hoped to give out a faster response in situations that involved real-world effects taking place at that moment in time.
So many previous versions of this Oversight Board entailed the desire to expedite the reviews generated by apps like Instagram and Facebook. However, we are yet to see that take place until now for content moderation issues.
Under this newly revised charter by the Oversight Board, Meta says it hopes to refer more cases to the platform with key details and explanations regarding why they felt the need for urgent reviews in the first place. And in case the head of the board does plan to take on the case, Meta would be bound to the ultimate decision as per state laws.
For this to occur, an entire panel would come forward and review the cases and produce decisions within a deadline of just two days. But in some cases, it might take as long as a month for those cases to require a little extra in-depth approach. Their targeted timeframe is outlined to be 90 days for those cases that are very complex in nature.
No public comments would be taken into account for such cases, thanks to the great time concerns attached. Moreover, it might end up carrying out faster reviews for the sake of appeals from users.
Other decisions spoke about the board making great plans to publish decisions taken during the first summary meeting. And after that, the committee would select an array of cases that would be up to the board for consideration. But in most cases, Meta does end up altering the original decision. On average, they’ve seen it occur 80 times, just so content that was ranked gets restored.
As we move ahead, the committee would be selecting an array of such cases that Meta may have reversed. And then a new panel would review that and set forward summary decisions. This entails plenty of details about the original decision that Meta ignored and also no more consideration of any public comments would be entertained.
It’s clear that the board is not interested in repeating the mistakes of the past and wants to ensure that such cases serve as important lessons.
Despite the fact that the board was formed new years back, it has managed to publish 35 decisions linked to Meta’s Facebook and Instagram removing content or allowing it to stay on the apps. Just last year, we saw Meta put ahead nearly 191,000 cases.
These new measures don’t mean that the board will review more cases than what has been seen in the past. Instead, it would now be better able to review those cases deemed urgent at a faster pace. And we feel that is what the entire purpose should be from day one as compared to the decision pending for months.
By the looks of it, the new rules being laid out seem sensible and a positive approach for Meta to move ahead in its content moderation strategies.
Read next: 8 Growth Hacks for Social Media Marketers (Based On Data)
