2021年1月22日 星期五

On Tech: Facebook invokes its ‘Supreme Court’

The site asks its oversight body to rule on Trump. But its justice system doesn't work for everyone.

Facebook invokes its 'Supreme Court'

Doug Mills/The New York Times

Facebook's new "Supreme Court" is taking on its biggest case: Donald Trump.

The company's recent decision to suspend Mr. Trump's account after he incited a mob was — to put it mildly — contentious. On Thursday, the company asked its independent oversight body to review its decision and make a final call on whether the former president should be allowed back on Facebook and Instagram, which it owns.

Let me explain what this oversight board will do, and some of its benefits and limitations:

An independent arbiter is good. To a point: Facebook in 2019 outlined its plans for a court-like body to reconsider the most high-profile situations in which people think Facebook erred in applying its rules against hate speech, incitement of violence or other abuses.

Many people, including Facebook's chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, are uncomfortable with the idea of Facebook having the unquestioned power to silence world leaders and shape online discourse. The oversight board, whose rulings Facebook calls binding, is a measure of independent accountability for the site's decisions.

The Trump suspension is by far the biggest case for the oversight board, which is made up of outside experts and just recently selected its first cases to review. The ruling will be closely watched and will influence the legitimacy of this new measure of Facebook justice.

ADVERTISEMENT

(For deeper reading, check out this post by Evelyn Douek, a lecturer on Law and S.J.D. candidate at Harvard Law School who studies regulation of online speech.)

Is it time to change policy for world leaders? The oversight board is also being asked to consider a question that goes far beyond Mr. Trump: Should Facebook continue to give world leaders more leeway than the rest of us?

Both Facebook and Twitter allow top public authorities to post hateful or untrue things that would get most of us blocked or our posts deleted. The principle behind this is sound: What world leaders say is a matter of public importance, and the public should be able to see and evaluate their views without a filter.

There are real-world trade-offs, however, when powerful people have a megaphone to blare whatever they want.

ADVERTISEMENT

In Myanmar, military leaders used Facebook to incite a genocide against the mostly Muslim Rohingya minority. In India, a prominent politician threatened to destroy mosques and called Muslims traitors in his Facebook posts. Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has called for the destruction of Israel on Twitter. And on social media sites, Mr. Trump and Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte have alluded to shooting their own citizens.

Those world leaders can and often do say the same things on television or in press statements, but when that happens there are usually opportunities for journalists to provide context and reactions.

Greg Bensinger, a member of the New York Times editorial board, recently argued that the social media companies' world leader policy is backward. If anything, there should be more rules rather than fewer for world leaders on Facebook and Twitter, he said.

What the oversight body says about this question could reset a crucial global policy.

What about the other billions of people? Each year, Facebook makes billions of decisions on people's posts, but the oversight board will only consider maybe dozens of high-profile disputes.

ADVERTISEMENT

The board won't help the many millions of people with far less power than Mr. Trump who have their voices silenced because of a decision Facebook made or failed to make.

This includes businesses and people who have their Facebook accounts locked and can't get anyone at the company to pay attention. A teenager who is harassed on Facebook and quits the site doesn't have someone to intervene on her behalf. And Rohingya who were slaughtered in their homes can't appeal to this board.

The board's decision on Mr. Trump may influence how online forums treat world leaders. But the fact remains that for most Facebook users, the company is the last and final word on what people can or can't say. And Facebook faces little accountability for the consequences.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Before we go …

Hugs to this

This video is a bizarre combination of two internet trends: cold and seemingly grumpy Bernie Sanders and sea shanties. I love it.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

2021年1月21日 星期四

On Tech: What internet censorship looks like

In East Africa, too much Facebook has been awful. So has too little Facebook.

What internet censorship looks like

Timo Lenzen

We've seen the internet magnify the best and the worst of ourselves. Abdi Latif Dahir, who writes about East Africa for The New York Times, has covered the most extreme examples of both.

Governments in the region regularly shut down internet access or manipulate online conversations to control dissent — Uganda did both ahead of last week's presidential vote. But citizens also use social media to expose election manipulation and spread feminist movements.

Our conversation highlighted an essential question: Can we have the wonderful aspects of connecting the world online without all of the downsides?

Shira: Why did Uganda cut off internet access?

Abdi: The government capitalized on Facebook and Twitter taking down phony accounts that promoted the government of President Yoweri Museveni. It was an excuse for an internet blackout that many people expected.

The president said that these Western companies can't decide "who is good or bad." The restrictions were meant to be targeted, but a large chunk of Uganda's internet went dark.

Is the internet restored now?

Yes, it was restored after the government declared that President Museveni won a free and fair election — which independent international observers dispute. The government, trying to justify why it took down Facebook and Twitter, is now releasing statements on Facebook and Twitter. President Museveni has also started tweeting again.

Was this an isolated incident?

No, governments here regularly restrict the internet. Autocrats have become adept at shutting down or manipulating the internet to control people and information.

What's the impact of this?

It can do incalculable damage. When Ethiopia shut down access to the internet and communications during its military campaign in the Tigray region, the government was able to control the narrative. It was difficult to know what was really happening, and people didn't trust any information about the war.

ADVERTISEMENT

People acting for Somalia's government harass those who are critical of the authorities on Facebook and Twitter. People who are on these sites to celebrate progress in the country or raise critical questions are being drowned out.

Are all of these harms offset by the good generated from people assembling online?

You can't ignore the bleak picture, but we also shouldn't underestimate how powerful these technologies are.

In Tanzania, people used Twitter to collect evidence of vote tampering. Kenya's Supreme Court in 2017 ordered a new presidential election, and some credit goes to people who documented online the manipulation of election results. The Kenyan writer Nanjala Nyabola wrote a book about Kenyans exercising power in new ways online, including feminists flourishing on Twitter.

ADVERTISEMENT

And I check Kenyan Twitter first thing each morning. It's full of funny memes and lively conversations.

Should Facebook and Twitter do anything differently to limit the harm?

The Uganda election was one of the few times — if not the only time — that I've seen Facebook hold an African government accountable for manipulating online conversations. Mostly, as in many countries, East African activists have said that Facebook and Twitter aren't devoting enough attention to online incitements.

Groups in Ethiopia asked Facebook to take action last year against posts that inflamed ethnic violence after the killing of a popular singer and activist, Hachalu Hundessa. Facebook had put in place plans to screen posts in African languages including Oromo, but I don't think enough is being done to mitigate the harm.

(Facebook described here its response in Ethiopia.)

You're describing damage from too much restraint of the internet in some cases, and too little restraint in others.

ADVERTISEMENT

I know. When I talked to friends about the Ethiopian internet shutdown during the Tigray war, many of them were supportive of it given all of the horrible things that happened after Hundessa was killed. It's all complicated.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Amazon offers vaccine help. Good. I think?

Two conflicting ideas constantly rattle around in my brain about mammoth technology companies. I'm worried about how much power they have. I also want them to use that power to save us.

Amazon on Inauguration Day offered to help with President Biden's plan to vaccinate 100 million Americans against Covid-19 during his first 100 days in office. Amazon said it could lend its "operations, information technology and communications capabilities and expertise," without being more specific.

Vaccinating hundreds of millions of Americans is partly a logistics challenge. Amazon is really good at logistics. So let's hope that Amazon and other companies can help. But let's also remember that technology and big business need an effective government — and vice versa — to solve complex challenges like this.

Look, the cynical part of me immediately thought that Amazon was just trying to make nice with the Biden administration. My colleagues at the DealBook newsletter also noted that Amazon and other companies offering to help state or federal governments with vaccinations may be angling to get their employees moved up the priority list.

But cynical or not, I'm back to where I often am: half hoping and half fearing that a technology giant can intervene in a complicated problem.

I felt that way when Google's sister company looked as if it might swoop in to coordinate coronavirus testing. (Nothing much came of that.) We saw how Facebook's actions or inaction influenced ethnic violence in Ethiopia and affected what Americans believe about our election.

Like it or not, what technology companies do has a huge influence on our lives. If they're going to have such power, they should be responsible for using that influence in helpful ways. (Assuming we can agree on what is helpful.)

Before we go …

Hugs to this

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/