Facebook Responds to Global Coalition's Demand That Users Get a Say in Content Removal Decisions
By Karen Gullo and Jillian C. York
EFF and more than 100 civil society organizations across the globe wrote directly to Mark Zuckerberg recently demanding greater transparency and accountability for Facebook content moderation practices. A key step, we told Facebook, is implementation of a robust appeals process giving all users the power to challenge and reverse the platform's content removal decisions.
Facebook responded earlier this month in a private letter to EFF that we made public this week. In it we see a win for users fighting to get their content back up. Facebook has extended the appeals option to cover almost all categories of speech alleged to be in violation of platform rules, including content deemed to be spam, dangerous, or terrorist propaganda. People who report content that violates Facebook's community standards but remains on the platform will also get to challenge Facebook's inaction (although it's not clear when), according to the letter.
Facebook said user appeals will be reviewed by people other than those who originally decided to remove content. In addition, Mr. Zuckerberg recently announced plans to launch an "independent body" next year that will hear and decide certain appeals. In its letter to EFF, Facebook said it would consult with stakeholders and external groups, including signatories to the Zuckerberg letter, during the decision-making process about the independent panel. We will hold Facebook to its word to ensure that geographically and culturally diverse voices are heard.
Independent review of content removal is an important element of the Santa Clara Principles—a set of minimum content moderation standards with a human rights framing created by EFF and its partners. We called on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms to implement the standards when they were announced in May. We're still waiting, but it's encouraging to see Facebook implementing a key element of the Santa Clara Principles.
Facebook wrote, and users are confirming, that it's providing more details about alleged violations of community standards when notifying users about content removal. The company also says it has upped its data reporting game. Two days after the global coalition wrote to Mr. Zuckerberg demanding more transparency about content moderation, Facebook published a new report with more information about the volume of content removals. Facebook said in its response that future transparency reports will include data on how quickly it removed content in violation of its rules and how often content was restored following appeals.
Unfortunately, Facebook's efforts to be more transparent about content moderation only go so far. That has to change. The company wrote that it doesn't disclose information about the format of the content it removes, whether it's text, photos, or video, or reveal whether a government or individual reported and/or requested content be removed. "We don't believe this data provides critical information to our users or civil society about our content review practices," Facebook wrote to EFF. We and over 100 civil society organizations strenuously disagree. Facebook has removed legitimate speech at the behest of governments seeking to suppress voices in marginalized communities. We want to know if speech is removed because of government requests, algorithms, or decisions by employees.
We will continue work with our partners around the world to push for more accountability and transparency from Facebook. Our open letter of demands to Mr. Zuckerberg was an unprecedented effort to collectively advocate for hundreds of millions of Facebook users who rely on the platform to share, communicate, and create. We know that sloppy, inconsistent, and unfair content moderation practices hurt, and have real world consequences for the most vulnerable communities that struggle to be heard. That's why we'll keep the pressure on in 2019 and beyond.
No Downtime for Free Speech
Content Blocking
PETA v. Texas A&M
EFF is representing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, challenging on First Amendment grounds the practice of Texas A&M University of automatically and manually blocking PETA and its supporters from posting comments on the university's official Facebook page, a forum that is otherwise open for public comments. In response...
Social Media Platforms Increase Transparency About Content Removal Requests, But Many Keep Users in the Dark When Their Speech Is Censored, EFF Report Shows
San Francisco and Tunis, Tunisia—While social media platforms are increasingly giving users the opportunity to appeal decisions to censor their posts, very few platforms comprehensively commit to notifying users that their content has been removed in the first place, raising questions about their accountability and transparency, the Electronic...
EFF Project Shows How People Are Unfairly "TOSsed Out" By Platforms' Absurd Enforcement of Content Rules
San Francisco—The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today launched TOSsed Out, a project to highlight the vast spectrum of people silenced by social media platforms that inconsistently and erroneously apply terms of service (TOS) rules.TOSsed Out will track and publicize the ways in which TOS and other speech moderation rules...
Deeplinks Blog by Corynne McSherry | May 10, 2019
Social Media Councils: A Better Way Forward, Window Dressing, or Global Speech Police?
Social media platforms routinely make arbitrary and contradictory decisions about what speech to block or penalize. No one is happy with the status quo: not people who want more censorship, nor people who want less censorship, nor people who simply want platforms to make different choices so that already-marginalized groups...
Five Civil Society Organizations Remind Congress: Look to the Supreme Court, Not Silicon Valley CEOs, For Guidance Before Regulating Online Speech
New York, San Francisco, and Washington D.C.—As policymakers around the U. S. contemplate regulations to protect and/or restrict online speech, a group of public interest organizations dedicated to free expression are publishing a set of legal guideposts that must inform any legislative or regulatory discussion. The document, entitled "Online...
Deeplinks Blog by Karen Gullo, David Greene | December 12, 2018
EFF To U.S. Supreme Court: Rule Carefully In Free Speech Case About Private Operators, State Actors, and the First Amendment
Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter provide an opportunity for everyone to have a voice on the Internet, to communicate with friends, post their views, and comment on movies or the president. However, the fact that they provide a broad, open platform for speech doesn't automatically mean they...
Deeplinks Blog by Cindy Cohn | November 28, 2018
Questions We Should Be Asking About Facebook's Smear Campaign Against Its Critics
The New York Times published a blockbuster story about Facebook that exposed how the company used so-called "smear merchants" to attack organizations critical of the platform. The story was shocking on a number of levels, revealing that Facebook's hired guns stooped to dog-whistling, anti-Semitic attacks aimed at George...
Press Release | November 13, 2018
EFF, Human Rights Watch y más de 70 grupos de la sociedad civil solicitan a Mark Zuckerberg que proporcione a todos los usuarios y usuarias un mecanismo para apelar ante la censura de contenidos en Facebook
English version San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation y más de 70 grupos de derechos humanos y digitales pidieron hoy a Mark Zuckerberg que añadiera transparencia y responsabilidad real al proceso de eliminación de contenidos de Facebook. Específicamente, los grupos exigen que Facebook explique – claramente - cuánto...
EFF, Human Rights Watch, and Over 70 Civil Society Groups Ask Mark Zuckerberg to Provide All Users with Mechanism to Appeal Content Censorship on Facebook
Spanish version San Francisco—The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and more than 70 human and digital rights groups called on Mark Zuckerberg today to add real transparency and accountability to Facebook's content removal process. Specifically, the groups demand that Facebook clearly explain how much content it removes, both rightly...