New Controversy Erupts as Meta’s Oversight Board Scrutinizes Sweeping Revisions to Hate Speech Policies

Fewer than two weeks prior to Donald Trump’s inauguration, Meta revealed major modifications to its content moderation policies, purportedly driven by Mark Zuckerberg alongside a select few advisors. The organization’s own Oversight Board was among those taken by surprise; this independent entity was established by Meta to facilitate important policy determinations. The board is now set to investigate these alterations, thereby evaluating the extent of its own authority.

The adjustments implemented by Meta significantly transform the way the firm regulates content on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. The company has discontinued its fact-checking initiative in the U.S. and relaxed its hate speech regulations that had previously safeguarded immigrants and LGBTQ individuals. In a move away from its historically proactive measures, Meta has revised its content moderation protocols, meaning many violations will now only be addressed if other users submit reports.

These shifts have prompted inquiries into the function of the Oversight Board, which Zuckerberg had previously explained was formed because “Facebook should not make such pivotal decisions regarding free speech and safety independently.” Critics now question the purpose of maintaining an allegedly independent Oversight Board if that autonomy is no longer observed.

Nevertheless, the Oversight Board is proactively addressing Meta’s newly revised «hateful conduct» policies, as noted by board member Paolo Carozza in conversation with Engadget. Following Zuckerberg’s announcement of alterations in early January, four existing cases concerning Meta’s hate speech regulations were already on the board’s agenda. The board now intends to leverage these cases to evaluate the revised policies, which have been adjusted to permit individuals to utilize dehumanizing terminology concerning immigrants and assert that LGBTQ persons are mentally ill.

“We intentionally postponed decisions on those cases until after January 7, specifically to return to Meta with a new set of questions,” Carozza, who is a law professor at Notre Dame and joined the board in 2022, informed Engadget. “We aim to employ our available tools to gather more information and enhance transparency and certainty regarding how policy will be applied in practice.”

According to Carozza, the board has already held discussions with Meta in pursuit of more insights into the new hate speech guidelines. However, it may take a while before the board’s findings are publicly available. The pending cases address various aspects of Meta’s hate speech regulations, including issues of immigration, gender identity topics, use of hateful symbols, and acts of violence incitement.

In addition to grappling with numerous case-specific inquiries, Carozza mentioned that the board is also wrestling with how to prioritize these decisions given the renewed significance of the underlying policies. “There are conflicting considerations regarding the urgency and efficiency of actions versus a more thoughtful and deliberate approach,” he stated.

Yet, while the board aspires to enhance transparency regarding Meta’s decision-making, it remains uncertain how much authority the board will ultimately wield. According to its regulations, Meta is only obligated to adhere to the board’s determinations concerning specific posts. The board’s policy suggestions are not binding, and Meta has a variable implementation success of its recommendations.

Additionally, it is questionable how the board might address Meta’s other transformations, such as the cancellation of fact-checking initiatives or the pivot away from proactive moderation. “We were rather critical of the fact-checking initiative overall, but our standard cases make it somewhat difficult to tackle that issue since it does not emerge through the appeals mechanism relevant to the types of cases we receive,” Carozza states. He indicates that the board could still provide a policy advisory opinion on these matters, similar to the discussions surrounding COVID-19 misinformation policy or Meta’s cross-check rules for public figures. However, such advisory recommendations can only be made at Meta’s request.

This highlights one of the core conflicts inherent in the Oversight Board’s function: while it functions independently, Meta ultimately determines the extent of its influence. “It would be unrealistic to expect that the measurement of our board’s success is that Meta adheres to every single directive we provide,” Carozza explains. “We are just one component of a complex puzzle of accountability and oversight.”

Nonetheless, the fact that the group was not consulted regarding such significant policy changes has prompted troubling questions for the board. Numerous civil society organizations recently penned a public letter calling for the resignation of board members in protest. In a communication to Zuckerberg, certain members of Congress expressed that the board is “rendered ineffective” when Meta neglects its own principles.

Carozza acknowledges the restrictions faced by the Oversight Board but maintains that the billions of users on Meta’s platforms ultimately benefit from the board’s interventions. “If all members were to resign en masse, the only individuals who would genuinely suffer are Meta’s end users, particularly those in vulnerable positions [and] communities globally.”