Meta's Oversight Board is looking into transparency around disabling accounts

[Rad]

Meta's Oversight Board Launches Investigation into Transparency Around Disabled Accounts

In a move aimed at addressing concerns over social media platforms' handling of hate speech and harassment, Meta's Oversight Board has launched an investigation into the company's decision to permanently disable an account. The board is seeking public input on how best to ensure due process and fairness in such cases.

The account in question was disabled for posting visual violent threats and harassment against a journalist, as well as sharing anti-gay slurs against prominent politicians and content depicting a sex act, alleging misconduct against minorities. Despite not reaching the ban threshold of seven strikes, Meta's internal review experts deemed it necessary to disable the account due to consistent violations and calls for violence.

This decision marks a significant departure from Meta's previous guidance, which states that even seven strikes result in only a one-day ban. However, its account integrity page outlines examples of when it will disable accounts, including violating community standards through "risk of imminent harm" to an individual.

The Oversight Board is now seeking public comments until February 3 on several key topics:

* How to strike a balance between protecting users from abuse and harassment while ensuring due process for those affected
* The effectiveness of measures taken by social media platforms to protect public figures and journalists from repeated abuse and threats of violence, particularly against women in the public eye
* Challenges in identifying and considering off-platform context when assessing threats against public figures and journalists
* Research into the efficacy of punitive measures versus alternative or complementary interventions
* Good industry practices in transparency reporting on account enforcement decisions and related appeals

This investigation represents a significant opportunity for Meta to provide greater transparency on its account enforcement policies and practices, make recommendations for improvement, and expand the types of cases the Board can review.

 

[Hilarious Hare]

this is wild, i mean, who gets disabled from social media for like 2 weeks but has 7 strikes? shouldn't that be a permanent ban or at least more than just a one day ban? also, what's up with the inconsistency in how they handle these cases? on one hand, they're supposed to protect users from abuse and harassment, but on the other hand, they're being super chill about it . i guess this investigation is a good start tho, maybe they'll figure out a way to make those accounts that are doing the abusing get what's coming to them

 

[Fancy Ferret]

This is a big deal for me because I'm all about holding social media platforms accountable for their actions. The fact that Meta's Oversight Board is launching an investigation into transparency around disabled accounts is music to my ears . I mean, who doesn't want to know how they got banned from Facebook or Instagram in the first place?

But seriously, this investigation could lead to some major changes and improvements for users like me. If Meta can figure out a way to balance keeping users safe with ensuring due process, that would be awesome . And I'm all for public input - it's one of those democratic things where everyone gets a say .

One thing that really got my attention was the idea of considering off-platform context when assessing threats against public figures and journalists. Like, what if someone posts a threatening comment online but also shares it on their podcast or in an interview? Shouldn't social media platforms take that into account?

Anyway, I'm excited to see where this investigation goes and what recommendations the Oversight Board comes up with . It's all about transparency and accountability, right?

 

[Wonderous Ra]

I'm so glad they're finally looking into this ! I've always thought that 7 strikes was too lenient, especially when it comes to threats and harassment. Like, what's the point of even having community standards if you're just gonna let people keep posting vile stuff?

It's also wild that Meta can just disable an account without even hitting the 7 strike limit . I get that they want to protect users from abuse, but at the same time, they need to make sure they're not overstepping and infringing on free speech.

I'm all for them exploring alternative interventions, like education programs or community resources, instead of just relying on punishment. It's time for Meta to step up their game and show us that they're committed to creating a safe space for everyone .

 

[Scandinav]

So now Meta's Oversight Board is like, finally taking some responsibility for their own mess... about time, right? I mean, who wouldn't want to know more about how they're handling these super sensitive issues, especially when it comes to free speech and safety online?

I'm all about due process and fairness, but let's be real, the real question is: what takes them so long to realize this? Like, did they really need some investigation from an outside board to tell them that maybe, just maybe, their "risk of imminent harm" guidelines aren't quite as clear-cut as they thought?

 

[Extreme Ha]

the fact that they're investigating this is kinda important . i mean, it's not like we've never seen accounts get disabled for "risk of imminent harm" before, but it's always good to have a better understanding of how these decisions are made and what guidelines are in place . it's also interesting that they're looking at the balance between protecting users from abuse and harassment while still ensuring due process for those affected . can't wait to see what insights come out of this investigation

 

[Vampir]

I'm kinda surprised they're looking into this now , considering how long ago that post was made . Either way, I think it's great that they're trying to get a better handle on things . As for the whole "due process" thing, I don't know if they'll be able to balance protection for users with keeping accounts accountable . It feels like a tough nut to crack . Has anyone else noticed how hard it is to keep an eye on comments when there's so many posts going up at once?

 

[Alive Anteater]

I'm low-key concerned about how social media platforms like Meta are handling sensitive situations like this. It's all well and good that they're taking action to disable accounts that pose a risk of harm, but at what cost? The journalist in question must've been living in fear for their life. And what's with the lack of transparency around the whole process? I mean, we don't even know how many times this account was flagged before it got disabled or if there were any human eyes reviewing the content. Transparency is key here, and Meta's Oversight Board should be pushing for more. It'd be interesting to see some research on why these platforms are so hesitant to take action against hate speech and harassment, especially when it comes to women in public eye.

 

[Smo]

omg this is like so important!! social media platforms need to do better in handling sensitive issues like harassment & hate speech. i'm all for protecting users but also making sure people aren't silenced or discriminated against. meta needs to be more transparent about their process and make sure they're not being too harsh on ppl who just wanna express themselves.

 

[My Very Own C]

I dont understand why meta cant be more clear about when they gonna ban accounts. like whats with all this 'risk of imminent harm' stuff? it sounds like a big excuse to just mess with someone's account . and what happens if its not just one person who is being abused? does meta have some kinda special team that only handles these cases or something? its weird that they need the publics help to figure this out... shouldn't it be like a set of simple rules or somethin'?